CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 26, 2017
AGENDA TITLE: Regional Transportation Update: SH119 and SH7 corridor studies, transit service delivery study and transportation funding
PRESENTER/S Jane Brautigam, City Manager Carl Castillo, Policy Advisor, City Manager’s Office Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works Michael Gardner-Sweeney, Director of Public Works for Transportation Kathleen Bracke, GO Boulder Manager, Transportation Jean Sanson, Senior Transportation Planner, GO Boulder Natalie Stiffler, Senior Transportation Planner, GO Boulder
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study session is to provide City Council with an opportunity to discuss regional transportation initiatives, including 1) multimodal corridor planning along East Arapahoe/SH7 and Diagonal Highway/SH119, 2) the city’s Renewed Vision for Transit – Service Delivery Study and 3) current transportation funding opportunities and challenges. This memo also provides background on Boulder’s Regional Travel focus area policies and recent accomplishments. This study session is timely and important due to current regional discussions occurring with the City of Boulder, Boulder County, US36 Mayors and Commissioners Coalition, Commuting Solutions, Northwest Area Chamber Alliance and additional agency partners, including the Regional Transportation District (RTD), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). Feedback from this study session will be used to inform representation by city officials (both staff and council members) in the various forums that provide opportunities to further the implementation of Boulder’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP). KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED Key issues related to this regional transportation update include:
• Background information regarding Boulder’s TMP “Regional Travel” focus area policies. • Updates regarding regional multimodal corridor plans, including arterial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and commuter bikeways along: o East Arapahoe/SH7 from Boulder to Brighton, and o Diagonal Highway/SH119 from Boulder to Longmont • Update regarding the city’s Renewed Vision for Transit – Service Delivery Study, and • Review of TMP investment policies and transportation funding challenges and opportunities (local, regional, state and federal)
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL
1. Does Council have any questions or suggestions regarding the city’s vision for, adopted policy positions and strategic approach for the regional SH119 and SH7 corridor planning studies? 2. Does council have any questions or suggestions regarding progress to date, implications and current direction of the city’s Transit Service Delivery Study? 3. Does council have any questions or suggestions regarding the city’s vision, adopted policy positions or strategic approach for pursuing regional, state and federal transportation funding?
BACKGROUND The city’s local and regional transportation initiatives are guided by Boulder’s TMP, which includes five inter-related focus areas: Complete Streets, Regional Travel, Transportation Demand Management (TDM), Funding and Integrated Sustainability Initiatives. This study session highlights the “Regional Travel” and “Funding” Focus Areas and provides an overview of on-going action items identified to achieve Boulder’s regional goals. The TMP Regional Travel policies support greater mode choice for Boulder residents, students, visitors and non-resident employees and encourage regional travel options through transit/BRT, bicycling and ridesharing—all while recognizing that regional travel is projected to increase dramatically over the next 25 years. These policies are informed by and align with the TMP’s overall goals of enhancing safety and mobility for people of all ages and stages of life, as well as support Boulder’s community goals for Economic Vitality and meeting our Climate Commitment. The city’s regional transportation planning approach is also informed by RTD’s FasTracks–Northwest Area Mobility Study recommendations. To accomplish these inter-connected goals, the TMP’s Regional Travel policies and strategies encourage city staff and elected officials to participate in regional coalitions with neighboring communities and agency partners to advance the planning, funding and implementation of regional multimodal capital projects, transit/mobility service improvements and enhanced TDM programs. Examples of the city’s participation in regional initiatives are provided below:
• The City of Boulder’s representative to the US36 Mayors and Commissioners Coalition (MCC) is Mayor Suzanne Jones. The US36 MCC has an agreed-upon policy statement among the participating communities and counties. The coalition’s priority projects include completion of the remaining US36 multimodal corridor improvements, as well as new regional arterial BRT and commuter bikeways along the Diagonal/SH119, East Arapahoe/SH7, 28th Street, Broadway and South Boulder Road as well as other regional routes identified in RTD’s Northwest Area Mobility Study. In addition, the coalition supports continuing the pursuit of a community or region-wide Eco Pass and other TDM programs, first/final mile connections, station-area wayfinding improvements, implementation of railroad quiet zones and holding RTD responsible for completion of northwest area FasTracks commitments. Through her role with the US36 MCC, Mayor Jones also serves as the city’s representative on the SH119 and SH7 Policy Advisory Committees to be a voice for the Boulder community throughout these more detailed corridor planning processes. Details regarding the US36 MCC policy statement is provided in Attachment A and a summary of US36 MCC regional priorities is provided in Attachment B. • The City of Boulder’s representatives to the DRCOG Board of Directors include City Council members Aaron Brockett and Matt Appelbaum. Through their participation on the Board, they work with other elected officials from the Denver Metro area to create and implement the regional 2040 Metro Vision Plan, which guides regional transportation planning and investment priorities for federal transportation funding through DRCOG’s multi-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) process. • City Council member Mary Young is the city’s designated representative on RTD’s regional Pass Program Working Group. This working group is currently reviewing and making recommendations to the RTD staff and Board members to address existing challenges and offer new options for improving RTD’s rider pass programs. • Council members Jan Burton and Lisa Morzel are the city’s designated liaisons to the regional Commuting Solutions Transportation Management Association and are invited to attend quarterly membership events regarding regional and statewide transportation projects and funding initiatives. • In addition, Carl Castillo, Policy Advisor with the City Manager’s Office, collaborates with City Council and staff to develop the city’s annual legislative policy agenda topics, including regional transportation and funding initiatives, and coordinates with agency partners to advance these policies through regional, state and federal partnerships. Through the city’s active involvement in these regional coalitions, the following are several recent accomplishments that advance Boulder’s regional travel policies and priorities:
• US36 corridor improvements, including the Flatiron Flyer Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service, managed/express lanes and commuter bikeway connecting the Boulder community with the Denver metro area. This significant accomplishment required years of involvement by the city and regional partners along with state and federal elected officials to bring about the public/private financing to complete this complex set of multimodal improvements. The successful US36 approach of incorporating managed lanes, BRT and a parallel commuter bikeway is considered the role model for future corridor projects in the northwest region. Work continues to fully complete the US36 improvements: o Cities and counties along US36, along with Commuting Solutions, are partnering to design and implement regionally-coordinated wayfinding signage at Flatiron Flyer BRT stations to improve ease for people connecting with the regional and local transit routes and bikeways. New corridor wayfinding signage is planned for installation in late 2017/early 2018. o On-going coordination with RTD continues to achieve increased Flatiron Flyer BRT service to Boulder Junction, add back mid-day express service on Broadway and further improve service to/from Denver International Airport to better serve existing and future transit customers. • Inter-regional FLEX express transit service operating between Boulder and Fort Collins along SH119 and US2887 through a partnership with City of Boulder, Boulder County, Longmont, Loveland and Fort Collins. The existing grant funding for operating the FLEX express service ends in December 2018, and communities/counties are currently working together to explore future funding opportunities and partnerships to continue this inter-regional express service beyond 2018. • Initial grant funding to begin implementation of railroad quiet zones was secured through a regional partnership with City of Boulder, Boulder County, Louisville, Lafayette, Broomfield, Westminster and Longmont. The cities/county are working together to submit a federal Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant application in October 2017 to request funding for completing the remaining regional quiet zones. Prior updates to City Council regarding regional transportation include the April 2017 Information Packet as well as the November 2016 City Council Study Session. STATUS UPDATES AND ANALYSIS The following section includes an overview of the status and key issues for each of the key regional transportation initiatives. This information is intended to provide an opportunity for council to have a discussion regarding these topics at the Sept. 26 study session. Feedback from City Council will be used to guide on-going regional initiatives and collaboration with neighboring communities and agency partners. 1. Regional Multimodal Corridor Plans a. East Arapahoe Transportation Plan/SH7 (EATP)
The East Arapahoe Transportation Plan will be a long-range plan that considers a number of potential transportation improvements within the East Arapahoe corridor, including safety for people using all modes, walking and biking enhancements, improved regional and local transit, and improved vehicular travel, as well as urban design features.
With commitment to the principles and values of the city’s Public Participation Working Group’s recommendations, staff has undertaken a public engagement process that fosters meaningful contributions to the planning process. City staff has collaborated with a Community Working Group, TAB, City Council and community members to establish goals that guide each phase of the planning process, including the development and analysis of alternative solutions to multimodal transportation needs along the corridor. The following goals are categorized by the 2014 TMP Focus Areas and are aligned with the TMP objectives:
• Goal 1. Complete Streets: Provide Complete Streets in the East Arapahoe corridor that offer people a variety of safe and reliable travel choices. • Goal 2. Regional Travel: Increase the number of person trips the East Arapahoe corridor can carry to accommodate growing local and regional transportation needs. • Goal 3. Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Promote a more efficient use of the transportation system and offer people travel options within the East Arapahoe corridor. • Goal 4. Funding: Deliver cost-effective transportation solutions for the East Arapahoe corridor that can be phased over time. • Goal 5. Sustainability Initiatives: Develop transportation improvements in the East Arapahoe corridor that support and integrate with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and Boulder’s Sustainability Framework.
In the current phase of the planning process, the project team has evaluated a range of conceptual design alternatives in support of these goals and has been sharing the results of the evaluation with the public through broad community outreach. Figure 1 illustrates the planning process and schedule.
Figure 1: East Arapahoe Transportation Plan Process & Schedule
Range of Conceptual Design Alternatives Evaluated
A range of alternatives were identified based on national and international best practices; local and regional plans related to the East Arapahoe corridor, including coordination with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Update; technical analysis; and input from the Community Working Group, corridor stakeholders, general public, agency partners, TAB and City Council. The four conceptual alternatives illustrate a range of potential complete street design options for East Arapahoe, from Alternative 1/No Build Alternative, whereby no transportation improvements are made, to Alternative 2, which represents the most minimal investment in complete street features (such as completing gaps in the multiuse path and adding more transit vehicles and enhancing stops, but not changing the current roadway design) to Alternatives 3 and 4, which represent the largest investment in complete street features (such as repurposing existing travel lanes for exclusive Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lanes and adding protected bicycle lanes and pedestrian treatments).
Evaluation criteria have been developed to measure how well the alternatives further the goals of the plan and the TMP, as well as how the alternatives compare to each other and the relative benefits, impacts and tradeoffs of each. More details regarding the alternatives and evaluation summary is provided in Attachment C.
Community Input and Feedback
The questions the project team has posed to the community over the last several months have sought to help identify a preferred alternative(s). Much of the feedback staff has received has favored Alternative 3, which calls for repurposing the curbside travel lanes to business access and transit lanes. This design alternative has the potential to improve travel times for all commuters, and increase transit competitiveness with auto travel, and is not expected to degrade auto travel time. When asked which pedestrian and bicycle option they prefer, community members in general prefer a multiuse path and raised protected bike lanes, either located directly adjacent to curb or separated from the curb by an amenity zone. Staff is continuing to seek community input and will share more results with City Council in Dec. 2017 as part of the Transportation Master Plan update.
More detailed information on the evaluation results and a complete summary of public comments can be found on the project web site at www.EastArpahoeTransportationPlan.net.
East Arapahoe/State Highway 7 Regional Coordination
The East Arapahoe project team is also closely coordinating with Boulder County and partnering jurisdictions and agencies on the SH 7 BRT Feasibility Study and Planning and Environmental Linkage Study. Transportation staff and Mayor Jones participate in the Policy and Technical Advisory Committees meetings to ensure transportation improvements in the East Arapahoe corridor are complementary and supportive of planned multimodal enhancements along the entire SH7 regional corridor.
Initial SH7 study results indicate that BRT service on the corridor is a viable regional transit solution and should be accompanied by other modal solutions, including intersection improvements and a regional commuter bikeway, to connect people to and from all of the communities along the corridor and address congestion and safety concerns. Both studies are expected to conclude in fall 2017, with next steps involving a more detailed BRT operational analysis and environmental review to pursue local, regional, state and federal funding sources. b. Diagonal Highway/SH119 RTD State Highway 119 Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project
RTD kicked off the State Highway 119 BRT Corridor Project in August 2017. RTD is leading the 18- month study with the support and involvement of the City of Boulder, Boulder County, City of Longmont and other participating jurisdictions and agencies. The $3.5 million study will analyze alternative BRT improvement options between downtown Boulder and Longmont, with the goal of advancing a locally preferred alternative with broad stakeholder and community support. The project will also develop preliminary engineering plans, along with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) clearance of the BRT improvements, and identify preliminary capital and operations and maintenance costs, as well as a financial analysis/phased funding strategy for implementation.
At this early phase in the planning process, RTD is working with the project’s Policy and Technical Advisory Committees, which include Mayor Jones and Transportation staff, to develop a draft description of the purpose and need for the project:
• Advance Northwest Area Mobility Study recommendations, which prioritizes BRT between downtown Boulder and Longmont • Address growing travel demand in the State Highway 119 corridor • Increase “person throughput”, including transit, pedestrians, bicycles and cars • Minimize environmental impacts while improving multimodal access • Focus on safe solutions • Reduce corridor transit travel time and improve reliability • Improve transit connections and first and last mile connectivity • Identify and evaluate cost effective BRT options
The first round of public outreach is planned for mid-November. These options presented are likely to include dedicated BRT lanes (either side or center-running and all day or peak periods), high frequency and limited stop service, transit priority at congested intersections, enhanced stations, branding, as well as other BRT features. The next phase of the planning process will entail the analysis of alternatives, which is expected to take place through the first quarter of 2018. The SH119 BRT study is estimates to be completed by late2018/early 2019. Currently, RTD has $30 million allocated in its Strategic Business Plan for State Highway 119 BRT implementation in 2022; however, these funds are being currently being proposed by RTD staff for deferment until beyond 2024 due to RTD’s financial challenges. The US36 MCC is currently drafting a letter to the RTD to request that this initial SH119 BRT funding not be deferred beyond 2024. While it is generally recognized that this amount will only partially fund the initial implementation of the SH119 BRT, these funds are critical for leveraging additional state and/or federal funding to fully implement high-quality BRT along the SH119 corridor.
CDOT SH119 Managed Lane and Bikeway Study
At the request of the City of Boulder and Boulder County, CDOT is initiating a $250,000 study for a bikeway and managed lanes in the SH119 corridor between Boulder and Longmont. The study is expected to begin in fall/winter 2017 and will be developed in coordination with RTD’s SH119 BRT project. CDOT has identified $50 to $100 million or more in implementation funding for SH119, with details to be determined once the corridor BRT, managed lanes and bikeway studies are complete.
2. Renewed Vision for Transit – Service Delivery Study
The city’s Transit Service Delivery Study is an action item of the TMP’s Renewed Vision for Transit. The challenge facing implementation of this Renewed Vision for Transit is that Boulder’s current service model—which relies heavily on RTD for both local and regional transit service—is constrained. RTD’s limited resources and competing regional priorities throughout the metro area mean that the city needs to find additional and/or new transit delivery model(s) and resources if it is to fulfill the Renewed Vision for Transit and TMP goals. The questions in the Transit Service Delivery Study include:
1. Can the current service delivery structure deliver the Renewed Vision for Transit and where are the challenges? 2. What are potential alternative funding, operating and governance/partnership structures that can optimize opportunities to implement the Renewed Vision for Transit?
Technical work in 2017 has focused on refining the TMP’s Renewed Vision for Transit, developing a financial analysis that includes a summary of costs and revenues associated with local and regional RTD service for the Boulder community, and initial research of governance and funding models from a review of agencies across the country.
The project team refined the Renewed Vision for Transit network and provided updated costs for each phase of implementation (existing, near, mid and long-term). As shown in the table on the following page, the annual operating cost to provide the existing transit service in Boulder is approximately $50.4 million (local - $16.6 million, regional - $33.8M million), whereas the annual operating cost to provide Boulder’s long-term vision for transit is estimated at $117.7 million (local - $39.8 million, regional - $77.9 million) in 2017 dollars. In total, the approximate operating cost from current year to 2035 is expected to increase by approximately 133 percent under the long-term vision. These costs would require funding from multiple sources (existing and new) including local, regional, state and federal funding sources.
Annual Operating Costs (2017 Dollars)
Existing Transit Service 2035 Transit Service
Local Service $16.6M $39.8M
Regional Service $33.8M $77.9M
Total $50.4M $117.7M
Financial Analysis A key aspect of the 2017 work is the financial analysis that provides a summary of costs and revenues associated with the RTD service. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the value of transit service provided by RTD for the Boulder community, as compared to the amount of revenue attributable to Boulder for this service. The analysis utilized 2015 cost and revenue data from RTD and the City of Boulder, which represents the most recent financial data available to compare costs and revenues. (Note: RTD’s base system service in 2015 included local and regional bus service, but did not yet include the US36 Flatiron Flyer regional service.]) The key findings of the financial analysis are as follows:
• Non-FasTracks funds (base bus system): o Contributions to RTD: In 2015, the Boulder community contributed a total of approximately $32 million for RTD base system transit service through tax revenues(0.6% sales tax), local contributions and direct HOP and EcoPass contract costs. After taking into account these revenue streams, staff estimated Boulder’s share of revenues to RTD based on the proportional basis of the city’s level of route activity as measured by passenger utilization relative to the entire RTD system. o The cost of RTD local and regional service for the Boulder community was approximately $34 million in 2015, based on RTD’s fully allocated cost model for all RTD operated routes and RTD reimbursement paid to Boulder for the separately- operated HOP service operated by Via Mobility Services. o Therefore, as measured by this financial model, Boulder covered 94 percent of the cost of service directly provided by RTD in 2015. In other words, for every $0.94 the Boulder community pays to RTD, the Boulder community gets back $1.00 in bus service.
• FasTracks: In 2004, metro area voters approved an additional 0.4% sales tax to RTD to fund FasTracks system improvements which included US36 BRT and Northwest Rail. o Boulder’s 2015 portion of the dedicated 0.4% sales/use tax levy allocated to RTD for the multi-billion dollar FasTracks program was $9.3 million annually. o Based on the RTD cost data, it was estimated that an annualized amount of $2 million in additional revenue service has been implemented since 2015 with the enhanced regional Flatiron Flyer service that began in January 2016. o In summary, Boulder contributes approximately $9 million per year to fund FasTracks and is receiving approximately $2 million in Flatiron Flyer service on an annual basis. It is also worth recognizing the substantial capital investment made possible through FasTracks, for RTD to invest in new Flatiron Flyer buses and US 36 infrastructure improvements for US 36 bus rapid transit service. As previously shared with council, RTD’s implementation of Northwest Rail is deferred beyond 2042 due to RTD’s financial challenges.
The technical memorandum detailing this analysis is provided in Attachment C and includes summary of national agency peer review.
Stakeholder Engagement
The project team has established a Policy Steering Committee, with membership from City Council, Boulder County Commissioners and University of Colorado-Boulder (CU), and a Technical Steering Committee with membership from City of Boulder, Boulder County and CU staff. The multi-pronged outreach approach also involves working closely with a core group of transit service providers: RTD, Via Mobility, Transfort and CU.
Next Steps
The next phase of work will include the identification and analysis of alternative transit service scenarios and related fiscal impacts. Options will include maintaining and expanding current service delivery models, as well as restructuring transit service. These options will range from ideas such as the city and Boulder County establishing and operating consolidated transit service, to the city operating local transit management and operations of the Community Transit Network (CTN) system, to forming a new regional transit authority. The study will evaluate costs, benefits, opportunities and challenges of all scenarios. The final phase of the study, anticipated to be completed in second quarter 2018, will include a recommendation to carry forward one or more preferred scenario(s) and involve a detailed financial analysis and recommended sustainable funding mechanism(s) to support the operations for the preferred governance model(s).
Figure 1: Renewed Vision for Transit Service Delivery Study planning process and schedule
3. Transportation funding challenges/opportunities Transportation funding is composed of a complex combination of local, regional, state and federal funding. How agencies invest in transportation is the true measure of their policies and commitment to stated goals. City of Boulder, in partnership with the community, has a long-standing, demonstrated commitment to investing in a balanced, sustainable and multimodal transportation system. The TMP’s investment priorities focus on multimodal system safety, maintenance, reliability, efficiency, connectivity, innovation, and network enhancements in alignment with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the city’s broader sustainability framework. In addition, the city’s investment principles highlight leveraging local resources with regional, state and federal dollars to fully implement Boulder’s TMP projects, policies and programs. Ultimately, over time, the city seeks to identify new opportunities for long-term sustainable funding sources that are tied to vehicle use. As stated in the TMP Funding focus area: “Investing to maintain and complete the walking, biking, transit and roadway systems is a key strategy for accommodating increasing trips and providing travel choices in Boulder.” a. Local Transportation Funding
The Boulder community has a long-standing commitment to investing in transportation system improvements. In 1967, Boulder voters approved a .6 sales tax dedicated to multimodal transportation system maintenance, operations, capital projects, plans and programs, and over the years the community has increased investment with the .15 sales tax (2014) as well as additional capital programs. In November 2017, Boulder will be celebrating 50 years of the community’s commitment to transportation investment. This local sales tax is greatly appreciated and provides approximately $25 million per year in funding to accomplish core services, improve safety and offer new, community-defining transportation projects and programs.
However, sales tax funding is a volatile funding source and fluctuates with the local and regional economy. For example, the city has revised the Transportation Fund revenue projections for 2018 by approximately 3.85 percent less than originally anticipated in response to forecasts. This reduction will impact all areas of Transportation, particularly on future capital projects, and increases the importance of continuing to leverage limited local dollars with regional, state and federal grant funding opportunities (although these non-local sources of funding are also limited and constrained).
For more details on the proposed Transportation Division budget for 2018, please see the Public Works section of the 2018 city budget document.
The follow pie chart shows the city’s 2017 Transportation Funding sources: 2017 Sources of Revenue - Transportation Fund 2% 1% 4% 1% 10% 1% 7%
74%
Sales Tax Highway User's Tax City-Auto Registrations County Road & Bridge HOP Reimbursement (RTD) Grant Funding Other Reimbursements Other Miscellaneous
The city’s priority local and regional projects are identified through the development of the TMP’s Action Plan and the annual Capital Improvement Program, in concert with the city’s annual priority-based budgeting process.
Regional priority projects/programs based on Boulder’s TMP, NAMS and US36 MCC:
o Arterial BRT and commuter bikeways along SH119, SH7, US287, South Boulder Road and SH42. th o Operational improvements to facilitate transit travel time and reliability along 28 Street and Broadway within Boulder to serve local transit as well as multiple regional BRT routes. o Expanding access to Eco Pass/Community Pass and other TDM programs to maximize use of regional BRT and multimodal corridor improvements. o See Attachment D for map of NAMS arterial BRT corridors
Regarding regional passenger rail service, the approved NAMS Consensus Statement and US36 MCC policy statement include the agreement that FasTrack funding should be dedicated to FasTracks projects (US36 BRT and Northwest Rail) and that funding for Northwest Rail should remain the financial responsibility of RTD. Significant sentiment exists that, since voters approved FasTracks funding for that purpose, RTD should not be “let off the hook” and that it is not reasonable to expect voters to pay twice for same project. Further, the MCC consensus agreement committed that arterial BRT should not compete for FasTracks funds. At the request of the cities of Longmont, Louisville and Westminster, RTD is evaluating “Peak Period Rail” to determine if limited, start-up service could be cost effective and affordable within the RTD shorter term budget. MCC representatives from City of Boulder support this analysis with the understanding that funding for any peak period/start up rail service would need to be provided by RTD FasTracks funds and not jeopardize funding for regional arterial BRT corridors.
Given the substantial list of high priority regional projects and limited existing funding options, several groups are discussing ideas to generate new sources of funding for regional transportation improvements. Conversations include concepts such as “a bundle” of Regional Transportation Authority (RTAs) for regions/sub-regions, an RTA along the North I-25 corridor and more locally, an initiative by Commuting Solutions to explore new mechanisms to generate revenue to implement NAMS and other northwest area transportation projects and TDM programs.
Whichever approach is used, it is important to ensure a “needs-based” approach and include funding for multimodal capital as well as operations and maintenance. In addition, is important for future regional and/or state funding strategies to be mutually supportive, and complementary of funding local transportation needs within the Boulder community.
b. Regional and Federal Transportation Funding
Regionally, the city seeks funding for larger scale, regionally significant multimodal capital projects, transit service and TDM programs through competitive applications for federal grant funds administered by DRCOG through the multi-year Transportation Improvement Project (TIP) process. For example, in the current TIP cycle (2014–17), the city successfully competed for approximately $11.5 million in funding for a variety of capital projects, such as the new Baseline underpass, Diagonal/SH119 Complete Street project, 30th and Colorado underpass (in design), North Broadway reconstruction project (in design) and a variety of additional bicycle, pedestrian, transit and TDM projects/programs. In addition, partner organizations such as Boulder Transportation Connections and Commuting Solutions receive DRCOG funding to provide TDM programs to support Boulder’s local and regional commuters.
DRCOG’s next federal funding TIP cycle encompasses 2018–21 and is estimated to include approximately $280 million in funding for the Denver metro area. The DRCOG Board have developed key focus areas to help guide the investment of these federal funds in alignment with Metro Vision’s Regional Transportation Plan policies and goals, which also support Boulder’s TMP policies:
• Improve mobility infrastructure and services for vulnerable populations and improve access to health services • Increase reliability of the existing multimodal transportation network • Improve transportation safety and security
Upcoming changes to the DRCOG TIP process for the 2018–21 cycle will create separate project categories:
• “Set-aside” programs ($45- $50 million) for smaller dollar amount projects and programs for community/station area planning, TDM programs, first and final mile connections, traffic signal systems/innovative technologies and enhancing paratransit service. • Two categories for larger scale projects/programs: “regional” ($69-$117 million) and “sub-regional” ($115 - $165 million). Regional projects are intended to be larger scale, visionary projects that address metro area travel needs and cross multiple county boundaries. Sub-regional projects are viewed as smaller-scale projects, focused within one city and/or county. • The proportion allocated to regional and sub-regional projects is currently being discussed by the DRCOG board and technical working groups. At this time, it is likely that the majority of funds (+/- 70 percent) will be allocated to the “sub-regional” projects, with the remaining +/-30 percent of funds identified for regional projects. • Sub-regional project funding will be allocated to metro area counties through a population and employment formula-based method, rather than the previous competitive grant approach. Boulder County is estimated to received approximately 10 percent of the available sub-regional funding for allocation to projects/programs for municipalities throughout the county, as well as for the county itself and for other qualified applicants (CDOT, CU, RTD, etc.).
There are pros and cons to this new approach, and this is the current topic of discussion by the DRCOG Board members and support staff. The following provides some considerations that are part of these discussions: o From a regional planning policy perspective, this new TIP process provides more local flexibility and decision-making to allocate the formula funds within each county based on county-wide goals. o However, this new flexibility creates risk that several counties within the metro area will focus funding on building roadway capacity projects working against the region’s ability to achieve the Metro Vision plan goals for enhancing mobility options and reducing single occupant vehicle (SOV trips) and vehicle miles travelled (VMT). o From a financial perspective, this new sub-regional approach will also likely significantly reduce the amount of funds secured by the city of Boulder and Boulder County. For example, in the current round of DRCOG TIP funding (2014-17), the City of Boulder and Boulder County received combined project funding of over $22 million (city received approx. $11.5 million). o With the proposed approach for the 2018-21 TIP funding cycle, the maximum amount of funds allocated by formula to all of Boulder County communities will range from $12 - $16 million, representing a potential 27 percent-45 percent reduction in federal regional funding. o Regional funding allocation will be limited to only major, regionally significant projects and programs within the Denver metro area that are shown on DRCOG’s fiscally constrained 2040 maps. For the northwest region/Boulder area, the maps being used by DRCOG would limit the eligible projects to: . SH119 BRT and managed lanes, regional bikeways along SH119, SH7 and US36. . Regional roadway projects would be limited to freeways only, so only US36 would be eligible. . Regional programs that would be available throughout the area (such as transit pass programs, low income pass, regional intelligent transportation infrastructure, etc.) are also eligible through the regional allocation. . SH7 BRT is not currently shown on DRCOG’s fiscally constrained transit map, so it would not be eligible for regional funding unless funding for advancing the corridor planning process and infrastructure improvements are identified.
Regarding the maps to denote regional funding eligibility, City of Boulder and Boulder County staff are requesting the following modifications: o Modify regional roadway map to allow Major Regional Arterials to be eligible (for example, SH119 and US287) so that multimodal corridor projects could be eligible for funding along these key regional arterials that cross multiple jurisdictional boundaries and provide regional system-wide connectivity. (Note: SH7 would remain ineligible unless CDOT upgrades the roadway classification to Major Regional roadway.) o Modify regional transit map to extend lines showing SH119 BRT into the city of Boulder and Longmont (not having the line stop at the community edge as shown currently). The importance of this is to allow regional and/or federal transit funding to be used for the full length of the SH119 BRT line from the logical termini of downtown Boulder to downtown Longmont, not end artificially at the edge of the communities. This is an important lesson learned from RTD’s Flatiron Flyer BRT project. o If the SH119 BRT corridor line does not extend into Boulder and Longmont, future BRT infrastructure improvements will be needed to create quality regional BRT service such as new and upgraded transit stops/stations, intersection improvements, signage, fare payment systems, operational systems and passenger amenities may be ineligible for regional and/or federal funding. This issue is also being brought up at the RTD SH119 BRT technical and policy advisory committee meetings. o Recommend TIP project evaluation criteria align with Metro Vision performance measures and targets to improve safety, increase mobility options and reduce SOV mode share and VMT per capita.
City Council representatives and staff are continuing to participate in the DRCOG Board discussions and technical working groups as well as coordinating with Boulder County and regional communities to advance our shared goals and priority projects. These discussions continue to be a work in progress throughout fall 2017. Strategies include working with DRCOG community representatives to add project evaluation criteria to the sub-regional funding allocation process to incentivize multi-county and broader regional transportation initiatives that are more closely aligned with Metro Vision goals, as well as ensuring that the regional project eligibility continues to allow for projects within Boulder/Boulder County and northwest area communities.
More broadly, federal funding for transportation remains in limbo given the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) changes resulting from the new federal administration. To date, federal funding is being continued as-is through a series of short-term, stop-gap continuing resolutions. As mentioned previously, the federal funding for the Denver metro area is administered through DRCOG, and the city continues to actively participate in that process.
In addition, the city and our agency partners continue to participate in national dialogue with Colorado’s Congressional Delegation and USDOT representatives, including Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration and Federal Railroad Administration, to stay apprised of existing and future federal grant funding opportunities. The US36 MCC continues to support federal funding for the regional arterial BRT corridor plans as well as railroad quiet zones. In October 2017, the City of Boulder along with Boulder County, Longmont, Louisville, Lafayette, Broomfield and Westminster will be submitting a federal TIGER application to implement the remaining regional railroad quiet zones.
c. State Transportation Funding
Throughout the community, many of Boulder’s arterial streets are also part of the state highway system, including SH119 (Diagonal, Canyon Boulevard), US36 (28th Street), SH7 (East Arapahoe), SH 93 (Broadway) and SH157 (Foothills Parkway). The city partners with CDOT to plan, build and maintain these critical local and regional connections by leveraging resources from local, regional, state and federal agencies. Unfortunately, each of these agencies is struggling to keep up with existing demands for roadway and transit operations and maintenance, much less have resources for expanding multimodal improvements. The city and our regional agency partners, including CDOT and the State Transportation Commission, continue to work together to advance state-wide funding initiatives to support these needs. Again, it is important that future regional and/or state transportation funding initiatives are complementary and support local funding initiatives and community goals. While recent passage of state SB267 (hospital provider fee bill) provides some additional funding for statewide transportation needs, it will likely be primarily directed toward rural communities and not provide a fix for the urban areas along Colorado’s Front Range.
The 2017 state legislative session also included the proposed HB1242, which was a more holistic approach to providing new funding for statewide multimodal transportation needs and modeled the prior unifying approach of MPACT 64. Unfortunately, HB1242 was not approved by the state legislature for the 2017 November ballot.
In response to these set-backs, metro area coalitions including the Denver Chamber and Denver Metro Mayors Caucus are exploring other potential statewide ballot initiatives for 2018 as well as considering the concept of multiple, smaller RTAs to generate funding for more regional projects in the metro area and/or along the Front Range. Ideally, a more holistic proposal for statewide and/or regional scale funding for multimodal transportation capital, operating and maintenance will come forward in 2018.
NEXT STEPS City of Boulder representatives from City Council and staff continue to work in collaboration with our neighbors and agency partners to advance Boulder’s TMP focus area goals for Regional Travel and Funding, including the plans and implementation for regional priority projects/programs and pursuit of additional funding opportunities. More information on progress regarding priority projects and local, regional, state and federal funding opportunities will be provided at the Dec. 12 City Council Study Session regarding the TMP Update. This information will also be used as part of the assessment phase for scoping the priority topics for the upcoming 2018-19 TMP update.
On-going community outreach is occurring with each of the corridor plans. Upcoming opportunities to learn more about local and regional transportation initiatives include the citywide open house on Oct. 11 and at the “Future Is Here: Advanced Mobility” forum on Oct 18.
ATTACHMENTS A. US36 Mayors and Commissioners Coalition Policy Statement B. US36 MCC Update - Summary sheet regarding regional priorities C. Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo D. NAMS Overview and Arterial BRT Corridor Map Attachment A: US36 Mayors and Commissioners Coalition Policy Statement Attachment A: US36 Mayors and Commissioners Coalition Policy Statement Attachment A: US36 Mayors and Commissioners Coalition Policy Statement Attachment A: US36 Mayors and Commissioners Coalition Policy Statement Attachment B: US36 MCC Update - Summary sheet regarding regional priorities US 36 Mayors & Commissioners Coalition Update March 2017 WXYZú Northwest Area Mobility Study (NAMS) LONGMONT • The 2014 NAMS assessed and prioritized - Construct I-25 Bi-Directional Managed Lanes mobility improvements for the Northwest between US 36 and downtown Denver; Denver/Boulder region. - Create arterial BRT corridors for SH 119, N • Local governments achieved consensus on SH 7, US 287, South Boulder Road, 120th projects and the RTD Board endorsed them. Avenue, and add enhanced transit service • Proposed projects that would create on SH 42 and 28th Street/Broadway; an integrated mobility system for the - Complete B Line; WXYZ¤ northwest region: - Implement railroad quiet zones along WXYZí - Complete remaining elements of B Line alignment. I³ US 36 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); • These priorities require additional federal, state and local funding.
BOULDER ERIE
ARAPAHOE RD !"`$
28TH ST BROADWAY WXYZè WXYZÍ S BOULDER RD LAFAYETTE ARKWAY ST P WE TH FGr R WXYZp LOUISVILLE NO SUPERIOR I} I³ KEY BROOMFIELD ARTERIAL BRT ALTERNATIVES KEY FasTracks Commuter Rail (future construction) 120TH AVE POTENTIAL ARTERIAL BRT CORRIDORS Regional Transportation District (RTD) FasTracks Commuter Rail (underSH 119 construction) FasTracks Flatiron Flyer/B Line Update US 287 US 36 BRT THORNTON 120th Avenue Potential Arterial BRT Corridors WESTMINSTER • Flatiron Flyer BRT Service began in SHS. Boulder 119 Road
WADSWORTH PKWY January 2016. USArapahoe/SH 287 7 !"`$ 120thSH 42 Avenue • The US 36 Coalition is working to identify S.North Boulder I-25 Road Bus on Shoulder I} funding for additional Flatiron Flyer vehicles Feasibility Study Arapahoe/SH 7 and service to meet current and future needs. ARTERIALSH 42 BRT ALTERNATIVES FasTracks Commuter Rail • B Line rail service to Westminster Station North(future I-25 construction) Bus on Shoulder Feasibility Study began in July 2016. FasTracks Commuter Rail (built) • RTD does not currently have the financial US 36 BRT !"a$ capacity to complete the B Line for several decades, but is exploring the possibility of DENVER operating a few trains during peak hours. Union Station US 36 Mayors & Commissioners Coalition Update Attachment B: US36 MCC Update - Summary sheet regarding regional priorities
US 36 Express Lanes Project • After 20 years in the making, the construction • This multi-modal, connected corridor works! project was completed in June 2016. - Traffic speeds are 20-29 percent faster • Provides travelers with choices, including the during commute hours (comparing pre- US 36 Express Lanes, BRT, US 36 Bikeway and construction to current). Transportation Demand Management. - The Flatiron Flyer BRT service increased ridership by 70 percent. - The B Line sees over 1,400 riders per day, 800 more than projected. The US 36 Coalition is Requesting Continued Federal Support to: • Fully fund the FTA Capital Investment Grants Mile Study, including Bike-n-Ride shelters, Program in the FY 2018 Transportation wayfinding, and transit pass programs; Appropriations Bill; TO LONGMONT • Support future TIGER grant for North I-25 Boulder Junction at Depot Square BOULDER • Support grant opportunities under the Bus Bus on Shoulder implementation; Downtown Boulder and Bus Facilities Program to purchase Transit • Streamline train horn rules and quiet zone Center 63rd &Arapahoe Flatiron Flyer vehicles; implementation through the review of FRA’s • Support Small Starts Grant and funding locomotive train horn regulations; Y Downtown Louisville WA N RK for studies and capital improvements to A • Incentivize/encourage the railroads to work P Table Mesa LOUISVILLE T S implement arterial BRT/enhanced bus Station E with local governments to share track for 36 service/regional bikeways along six essential passenger/commuter rail operations; NORTHW corridors (SH 119 match funding is a priority); McCaslin • Support federal funding of safety Station • Support grant opportunities to implement improvements (including quiet zones) for SUPERIOR recommendations of the US 36 First and Final passenger/commuter rail service and Transit Flatiron BROOMFIELD Station Oriented Development area. Broomfield Station INTERSTATE 25
Church Ranch Station WESTMINSTER
Sheridan Station Pecos Street
Westminster Station
KEY
BUS RAPID TRANSIT/EXPRESS LANES REGIONAL COMMUTER RAIL For more information: Bus Rapid Transit B Line (future construction) Reversible Bus Rapid Transit B Line (built) commutingsolutions.org Compatible Express Lane Bus Rapid Transit/Mixed Traffic Commuter Rail Station (future construction) North I-25 Bus on Shoulder Feasibility Study Commuter Rail Station (built) Union Civic 0,0,0,45 Station Center US 36100,90,0,0 BIKEWAY US 36 MAYORS & Station 12 Foot Multi-purpose Path Bus Rapid Transit Station COMMISSIONERS COALITION DENVER Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo CITY OF BOULDER TRANSIT SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - Task 1C
Financial Analysis of Current and Planned Transit Service, Programs and Capital Investments Introduction The purpose of this analysis is to determine the value of transit service provided by Denver’s Regional Transportation District (RTD) on behalf of the City of Boulder, as compared to the amount of revenue attributable to Boulder for this service. The analysis utilizes 2015 cost and revenue data from RTD and the City of Boulder, which represents the most recent financial data available to compare costs and revenues. Additionally, recognizing service changes in 2016, an initial analysis of Flatiron Flyer investment is provided in this report.
Executive Summary The key findings of the financial analysis are as follows:
In 2015, the Boulder community contributed a total of approximately $32 million for RTD base system service through a variety of revenue sources and direct subsidies. The sources of funding include sales/use taxes, passenger fares, City of Boulder contributions allocated to “buy-up” service (adding service on certain routes) and direct subsidies to operate HOP service. In addition, RTD received federal operating assistance, advertising, investment income, and other income including gains on sales of assets. Other than tax revenues, local contributions and direct HOP costs, Boulder’s share of revenues to RTD was estimated based on the proportional basis of the City’s level of route activity as measured by passenger utilization, relative to the entire RTD system. Base system: RTD service for the Boulder community cost approximately $34 million in 2015, based on RTD’s fully allocated cost model for all RTD operated routes, and RTD reimbursement paid to Boulder for the separately-operated HOP service operated by Via Mobility Services. Therefore, as measured by this financial model, Boulder covered 94% of the cost of service directly provided by RTD in 2015. When revenues and costs for expensive Access-A-Ride services are excluded, Boulder’s coverage share rises to 96.3% for fixed route bus services. FasTracks: Based on RTD cost data, it is estimated that an annualized amount of $2 million in additional revenue service has been implemented since 2015 because of enhanced Flatiron Flyer service that began in January 2016. Boulder’s 2015 portion of the dedicated 0.4% sales/use tax levy allocated to RTD for the multi-billion dollar FasTracks program was $9.3 million. This annual contribution, since the advent of the FasTracks program in 2004, helped support a variety of FasTracks capital improvements by CDOT and RTD, totaling in excess of $200 million over a decade to enhance transit service along the 18 mile US-36 Corridor between Boulder and Downtown Denver. In addition to revenues generated in Boulder to support RTD bus service, there has been over $9 million in funds programmed by Boulder for capital improvements to the bus Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo CITY OF BOULDER TRANSIT SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - Task 1C system, including enhancements to bus stops, transit center hubs, and other amenity upgrades. Boulder Junction at Depot Square Station serves as an example of a public- private partnership, in which the city of Boulder and RTD contributed funds.
City of Boulder Revenue Sources for RTD Service In 2015, the City of Boulder contributed a total of $23,291,578 through a dedicated 1.0% combined sales/use tax imposed on certain sales within the RTD service area. Of this total, $13, 974,947 or 60% was allocated to the base bus service, and the balance of $9,316,631 (40%) was directed for the build-out and construction of the RTD FasTracks program. Sales/use tax revenues represent the primary source of funding from Boulder for its RTD service, and are very sensitive to overall levels of economic activity for consumer and business spending. The Flatiron Flyer (FF) service began in January 2016 and it expanded service levels on the US-36 corridor. However, since the latest available data for the study was from 2015, all revenues and costs related to the FF service enhancements were not included in this analysis. The operating costs of transit serving the US-36 corridor were based on the 2015 network. The impacts of the additional investments from the 2016 implementation of increased FF service are discussed in more detail later in the analysis. Boulder also made a contribution of $495,086 to RTD for “buy-up” or increased service on the Jump and Bound ($480,000) and Stampede routes ($15,086). This contribution total includes a match from the University of Colorado for the additional Stampede service. The analysis also includes the HOP route, although it is operated by a private contractor (Via) and managed by the City of Boulder. The HOP line is a high frequency service that is unique to Boulder. Funding for operating HOP is split between the City of Boulder, University of Colorado, and RTD. Total 2015 costs to operate HOP were $2.4 million. After fare revenues are deducted from Boulder’s costs to operate HOP, the cost contribution in the analysis will credit Boulder with a net 2015 subsidy of $836,920. In addition, RTD’s total reimbursement to Boulder for HOP was $1,313,554 and this expense is added in the analysis to the fully allocated costs of RTD service for Boulder as well. The remaining revenue sources that are included in the City of Boulder’s contributions for RTD service are passenger fares, federal operating assistance (grants) received by RTD, advertising, investment and miscellaneous income (e.g., rental income, sale of assets, etc.). This information comes from two data sources: the 2015 RTD Service Standards report and RTD’s 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The Service Standards report details the annual boardings, fare revenues, in-service vehicle hours and translates this to operating costs for each route based on an allocation model. RTD incorporates operating, maintenance and administrative costs for providing service plus amortized depreciation on all RTD assets. The model allocates costs to each RTD route based on vehicle miles, in-service hours, and peak vehicles.
2 Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo CITY OF BOULDER TRANSIT SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - Task 1C Boulder’s share of these income sources and cost drivers are based on the proportion of passenger activity that takes place within the City’s boundaries. The passenger activity data comes from RTD’s 2015 Ridecheck Plus Runboard reports. For each route, the average passenger activity for all stops within the City of Boulder was calculated and divided by the route’s total boardings. This provided the percentage of a route’s activity that was based in the City of Boulder. Operating costs and the following revenue categories were assigned to Boulder based on this calculation of proportions:
Farebox revenue (including EcoPass, cash and access-a-ride), Federal operating grant assistance Advertising Investment income Miscellaneous/other income. In addition to these revenue categories, one other expense is counted in this analysis as a contribution by the City of Boulder for transit service: Boulder’s net cost of operating HOP service. This revenue source/subsidy item is discussed in greater detail below. Our analysis indicates that in 2015, 5.95% of all RTD route activity occurred in the City of Boulder. This 5.95% portion of route activity is credited to Boulder’s proportional share of four RTD revenue categories: Federal grants assistance, advertising, investment and other income. The complete set of route activity data for Boulder routes as well as the breakdown of revenues credited to Boulder, are presented in the table and chart below. Route Activity1 Boardings Boulder 6,056,224 RTD 101,868,591 % of Route Activity 5.95%
1 Ridecheck Plus Runboard, RTD 2015 Service Standards Analysis
3 Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo CITY OF BOULDER TRANSIT SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - Task 1C
Boulder Revenues2 Sales/Use taxes* $13,974,947 Farebox $11,084,559 Buy-ups $495,086 Federal Operating Assistance $4,366,289 Advertising $318,147 Interest Income $188,258 Other Income $678,717 HOP $836,920 Total $31,942,923
Sales/use tax revenues comprised 44% of total revenue credited. Farebox revenues include all cash and pass related revenues, including EcoPass, which are annual passes purchased by employers for their employees as a benefit, and by neighborhoods for local residents. Total fare revenue for the City of Boulder based on passenger activity was $11,084,559. The vast majority of this amount, totaling $11,049,877, represents Boulder’s share of fare revenues based on specific boarding activity of the various fixed routes operating within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries. About $34,682 of these fares came from Access-A-Ride. Boulder accounted for 2.1% of the 886,082 total Access-a-Ride (AAR) boardings. As a result, they were credited with 2.1% of the AAR fare revenues. No farebox revenues from Call-n-Ride services were included, because that service does not operate in the City of Boulder. While RTD was not able to provide separate EcoPass data for 2015, a review of 2013 data indicated that a significant portion of fare revenues from Boulder route activity was generated by EcoPass use. In 2015, EcoPass contract expenditures for the City of Boulder were almost $8.6 million, rising to 9.4 million in 2016. For the purposes of this analysis, the total Boulder Revenues amount includes EcoPass usage as a component of the fare revenues total. Based on the RTD Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for 2015, RTD received a total of $73.383 million in Federal grant operating assistance during that year. These funds are used by RTD to perform capital maintenance and maintain RTD’s revenue vehicle fleet of bus, paratransit and rail equipment. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that federal operating assistance is proportional to Boulder’s percentage of total RTD boardings or 5.95%.
2 City of Boulder, Ridecheck Plus Runboard, RTD 2015 CAFR, RTD 2015 Service Standards Analysis. Tax contributions for base system only. An additional $9.3M in sales/use tax revenues were allocated to FasTracks, and are not reflected in this table.
4 Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo CITY OF BOULDER TRANSIT SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - Task 1C Therefore, the City of Boulder’s portion of 2015 RTD Federal Operating Assistance would be $4,366,289. Advertising revenue for RTD is generated by placement of advertisements externally and inside of RTD’s buses, and external wraps on RTD’s light rail vehicles. In 2015, advertising generated $5.347 million in revenue for RTD based on the CAFR. Therefore, using Boulder’s proportion of total boardings, 5.95% of this advertising income is credited to the City of Boulder and equates to $318,147 for 2015. It should be noted that starting in 2017, a new initiative to generate additional annual advertising revenue on Boulder’s Community Transit Network routes (24 buses) was implemented. This pilot program includes advertising with king, queen and tail framed ads, and is expected to generate in 2017 an annual total of $583,440 in new income for RTD that will be fully attributable to City of Boulder activity. RTD’s annual financial report also indicated that revenue generated from investment income was a total of $3.64 million in 2015. This translates to a credit of $188,258 for the City of Boulder, based on their 5.95% share of boardings. The final RTD income category for RTD is other income/gain on sale of assets. In the 2015 annual financial report, RTD received $11,407,000 in this account. Other income represents revenue from retail space, parking and miscellaneous sources. Asset sale income can include air rights, easements and sale of property. Since Boulder’s share of total boardings was 5.95% in 2015, for the purposes of this analysis, Boulder has been credited with $678,717 for this revenue source. The full breakdown of revenues from each source is reflected proportionally in the figure below.
Boulder Revenues
1% 2% 3%
Sales/Use taxes 14% Farebox 1% Buy-ups 44% Federal Operating Assistance Advertising Interest Income Other Income 35% HOP
5 Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo CITY OF BOULDER TRANSIT SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - Task 1C City of Boulder Transit Service Costs RTD’s annual Service Standards Analysis report (SSA) evaluates the performance of each route and service mode using key metrics such as cost, fare revenues, boardings, in-service vehicle hours and net subsidy. This analysis utilizes RTD’s fully allocated costs to assess the 2015 cost of service provided to Boulder. RTD incorporates all operating, maintenance and administrative costs, as well as the amortized cost of depreciation for RTD asset in its allocation methodology. A total of 24 RTD routes serve the City of Boulder and are included in the analysis. These RTD routes feature a mix of directly-operated and contracted services. Appendix A reflects the full list of routes and their service statistics. The analysis includes the HOP route, in terms of Boulder’s and RTD’s contributions in 2015 to operate the service. The City of Boulder directly manages HOP service through a separate private operator (Via). The HOP line is a high frequency service that is unique to Boulder. Funding for operating HOP is split between the City of Boulder, University of Colorado, and RTD. Total 2015 costs to operate HOP were $2.4 million. The cost to operate HOP service is reflected in the analysis for Boulder’s net costs (after fares) and RTD reimbursement for HOP to run the service. One notable aspect of RTD service is their extensive use of contracted transportation service for bus, Access-A-Ride, and Call N-Ride services. In 2015, RTD expended a total of $113.2 million for purchased transportation to supplement their internal service delivery. The costs for RTD and private operators were not reviewed separately for this analysis since a majority of bus routes are not operated entirely by a single operator and the decision to operate service in-house or contracted is not based on jurisdiction geography. RTD’s fully allocated cost of the base and FF transit service in Boulder was $32,658,118 in 2015. The operating costs for each route were allocated to Boulder based on their share of passenger activity3. The costs for each individual route are summarized in Appendix A. In addition to the fully allocated cost, RTD was also credited with HOP reimbursement of $1,313,554 to determine their complete cost of service to Boulder in 2015. This yields a total cost to RTD of $33,971,672 for Boulder related transit service in the analysis. Based on RTD’s published costs, the farebox recovery ratio for Boulder bus services in 2015 was 34.7%, compared to the overall farebox recovery rate for all RTD bus service of 25.5%. These calculations do not include RTD light rail and special services such as Broncos ride, Call-N-Ride, Access-A-Ride, Van Pool, and Shopper’s Services.
3 RTD provided data that detailed the average weekday ridership for each stop in 2015.
6 Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo CITY OF BOULDER TRANSIT SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - Task 1C Farebox Recovery- Bus System4 Fares Costs % Boulder $11,049,877 $31,824,797 34.7% RTD $84,110,885 $330,340,061 25.5%
Financial Equity Summary After accounting for revenues and fully allocated costs from Boulder fixed route and Access-A- Ride services, the City of Boulder covered 94% of the costs of Boulder-based, RTD services. Boulder’s contribution rises to 96.3% for the fixed route Boulder service exclusive of the AAR service. The table below summarizes Boulder revenues and RTD costs for operating service in Boulder. Financial Equity Summary5 % of costs Boulder Revenues RTD Costs covered $31,942,923 $33,971,672 94.0%
Capital Investments The City of Boulder has actively sought Federal, State, and County capital funding to advance the goals of its Transportation Master Plan (TMP). A number of capital improvement projects that enhance passenger safety and improve the customer experience have been implemented in recent years to support TMP goals. Additional projects are programmed through 2019. From 2014 to 2019, the City of Boulder will have completed or commenced Capital Improvement Projects totaling more than $11.5 million. Boulder has provided $9.25 million or 80% this project funding through direct contributions from the City’s budget. These capital projects are considered long term investments, and are generally made to purchase major equipment (i.e. revenue vehicles) or construct/renovate/upgrade facilities and other structures, and by definition must have significant economic useful life for capital funding eligibility. Therefore, it is not feasible to equate an annual dollar value of a set of capital projects to an equity analysis that captures operating costs for service in a single calendar year. A list of key Capital projects impacting Boulder’s transit environment by year and cost is included in the table below.
4 RTD Ridecheck Plus Runboard, RTD Service Standards Report 5 RTD Ridecheck Plus Runboard, and RTD Service standards
7 Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo CITY OF BOULDER TRANSIT SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - Task 1C Capital Investments Table6 Cost Project ($ in Year millions) Boulder transit center upgrades 1.59 2014 Broadway & Euclid underpass 3.24 2014 Transit stops (FASTER) 0.48 2015-17 Boulder Junction (Pearl-Goose Creek) 1.54 2015 Boulder Junction-Goose Creek Bridge 0.5 2015 Diagonal project 0.11 2016 Baseline underpass bus stops 0.55 2017 North Boulder mobility hub construction (proposed) 3.1 2019
Flatiron Flyer In 2004, voters in the eight county Denver metro region approved a long-term, multi-billion transit expansion plan known as FasTracks. The FasTracks program plan included building 122 miles of commuter and light rail, 18 miles of bus rapid transit service, adding 21,000 new parking spaces and other improvements to better connect the eight-county district. A key component of the funding for FasTracks was the voters approving an increase in the existing sales/use tax levy by 0.4% in the RTD district from 0.6% to a combined 1.0% total tax levy. This dedicated 0.4% levy portion funds the long-term build out of the entire FasTracks program. In the three-year period covering 2014 through 2016, the City of Boulder contributed over $28 million as their share of the 0.4% sales/use tax dedicated to funding the long term build out of the FasTracks program.
. After an aggregate investment of over $200 million to complete Phases 1 and 2 for implementation of BRT on US- 36, in January 2016, RTD implemented Flatiron Flyer bus rapid transit service as a part of the FasTracks plan to expand transit across the region. This represented an upgrade of the group of former regional bus services serving the US-36 corridor between downtown Denver and Boulder, taking advantage of right of way improvements being furnished by the Colorado Department of Transportation along US-36 and a series of designed service enhancements to have the corridor operate in more of a Bus Rapid Transit mode. These enhancements include: New off-line bus stations with pedestrian overpasses and expanded park ‘n’ ride, ticket vending machines, and real-time service information;
6 City of Boulder
8 Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo CITY OF BOULDER TRANSIT SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - Task 1C
High Occupancy Vehicle Express Lanes; Shoulder Use Lanes; Traffic Signal Priority at Key Entrance Locations; New fleet of high capacity commuter buses. The FF service encompasses 18 miles of high frequency commuter bus service between Denver and Boulder, with both frequent all-stop service to widely-spaced stations along the US-36 corridor supplemented by peak-period, limited-stop express and all-station service. The table below summarizes the Flatiron Flyer’s service statistics. The FF implementation has increased annual hours of service by 19% when compared to service on the corridor before FF implementation. This represents an annual investment of over $1.9 million for enhanced FF service in the past two years, resulting in an annualized cost of more than $12.1 million to operate FF service, based on the 2017 service plan. Flatiron Flyer Data7 Pre- Flatiron January 1, August 1, January 1, Flyer 2016 2016 2017 Annual Total Hours 99,557 113,370 118,381 118,418 Blended Non-Retained Cost $102.41 per Scheduled Hour for Express Service Annual Cost $10,195,632 $11,610,186 $12,123,353 $12,127,183
7 RTD Service Data
9 Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo CITY OF BOULDER TRANSIT SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - Task 1C
Appendix A: Route Level Operating Statistics Average Weekday % Fare Operating Total Fare Operating Total Route Weekday Ridership Ridership Revenues Costs Boardings Revenues Costs Boardings Ridership in Boulder in Boulder Boulder Boulder Boulder 204 1,327 1,327 100% $477,305 $2,028,948 334,762 $477,305 $2,028,948 334,762 205 1,232 1,114 90% $471,483 $2,287,932 372,663 $426,325 $2,068,796 336,970 206 749 749 100% $175,088 $1,280,144 148,663 $175,088 $1,280,144 148,663 208 672 672 100% $195,006 $969,633 161,841 $195,006 $969,633 161,841 209 424 424 100% $243,904 $964,193 133,316 $243,904 $964,193 133,316 225 1,525 955 63% $502,816 $2,940,033 368,070 $314,878 $1,841,135 230,496 AB 1,546 678 44% $1,951,603 $3,726,693 443,616 $855,878 $1,634,345 194,548 BOLT 1,454 722 50% $2,062,191 $4,342,511 465,574 $1,024,004 $2,156,323 231,186 BOND 2,126 2,126 100% $789,172 $2,292,592 608,524 $789,172 $2,292,592 608,524 BV+BX Hybrid 5,240 1,690 32% $5,568,217 $7,036,723 1,779,387 $1,795,856 $2,269,477 573,886 DASH 2,463 1,645 67% $938,624 $3,847,192 676,793 $626,893 $2,569,481 452,020 DD 82 12 15% $33,395 $169,931 9,857 $4,887 $24,868 1,442 DM 257 30 12% $256,666 $1,245,280 90,923 $29,961 $145,363 10,614 GS 471 212 45% $266,475 $1,543,091 106,985 $119,942 $694,555 48,155 HX 799 220 28% $568,390 $2,085,728 177,286 $156,503 $574,293 48,815 J 247 121 49% $242,566 $909,599 68,697 $118,828 $445,593 33,653 JUMP 2,310 1,720 74% $750,490 $3,083,869 560,249 $558,806 $2,296,214 417,155 N 358 182 51% $386,203 $1,273,870 126,236 $196,338 $647,610 64,176 S 196 97 49% $151,411 $626,176 64,009 $74,933 $309,893 31,678 SKIP 5,542 5,542 100% $2,101,137 $5,294,107 1,562,336 $2,101,137 $5,294,107 1,562,336 STMP 2,158 2,158 100% $714,801 $1,146,406 392,883 $714,801 $1,146,406 392,883 T 138 10 7% $70,371 $719,500 29,709 $5,099 $52,138 2,153 Y 86 40 47% $95,316 $255,183 39,355 $44,333 $118,690 18,305 Grand Total 31,402 22,446 $19,012,630 $50,069,334 8,721,734 $11,049,877 $31,824,797 6,037,576
10 Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
CITY OF BOULDER TRANSIT SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - Task 1D
City of Boulder Transit Service Delivery Study National Agency Peer Review
Introduction and Methodology
The purpose of this memorandum is to present to the City of Boulder a peer review of other United States locales, in which a large regional transportation provider has separate localized transit services provided by individually defined municipalities, and/or other service delivery models within the greater region. This review incorporated the following factors for Boulder’s current primary transportation provider, Denver RTD, as well as the four peer transit agency situations (i.e. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, Seattle/King County Metro, Alexandria DASH, Foothill Transit) in various regions of the United States:
• Overview of each peer situation including history, governance structure and the relationship between regional and localized municipal and/or other service provider. • Scale of separate localized service as compared to regional service. This aspect included a comparison of ridership, revenue hours and route mileage. • Level of service and planning coordination between the regional and local provider. • Level and nature of financial support for separate regional service vs localized service. This includes a comparison of operating and capital funding at the federal, state and local levels.
The four peer organizations were chosen in collaboration with the City of Boulder to demonstrate key aspects for different sets of local transit operating models, including in-house direct municipal operation, contract management/operation, in-house management with contracted operations, and “buy-up” of supplemental service with regional providers via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement. A questionnaire exploring governance structure, funding streams, service coordination aspects, third party partnerships with large employers and/or universities, and other agency characteristics was developed and sent to the peer agencies to assist in gaining a deeper understanding of the nuances of each peer’s operating model. Responses were followed up with email exchanges and telephone interviews to clarify the key aspects of each model as needed. In addition to the questionnaire, a detailed set of service related and financial oriented metrics were drawn from the most recently available 2015 National Transit Database (NTD), to provide a comparison of peer agency characteristics, scope and performance, and operating effectiveness. Appendix A of this document includes the questionnaire responses from the four peer agencies as well as Denver RTD.
Conclusion Summary
• The peer review concluded that there are multiple operating model options that can be viable for the City (or County) of Boulder and are suitable for further examination in the next Phase 2 of this study. These options with various sub-options include:
o a separate local operation incorporating either an in-house,
1 Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
o fully outsourced or public/private non-profit corporation management/operation structure,
o or a service buy-up option that can utilize third party contractors or existing RTD operations, either in-house or contracted.
• Key factors affecting consideration of these options are:
o Creation of a separate local transit system would require establishment of a complete operating entity encompassing governance, funding streams, and all necessary functions through a public or private arrangement.
o A service buy-up model can accomplish the same objectives as compared to creating a separate system, by having a comprehensive negotiated agreement ensuring transparency and effective transit oversight.
o Each option can be developed in a manner to ensure performance, equity, and effective service control.
Current Situation
The City of Boulder’s 2014 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) set out a Renewed Vision for Transit that calls for expansion of both local transit service, known as Boulder’s Community Transit Network (CTN), as well as regional transit connections. Within Boulder, it is generally perceived that the primary challenge facing implementation of the Renewed Vision for Transit is that Boulder’s current service model, which relies heavily on the Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) for both local and regional transit service, is constrained. Limited resources and competing priorities for RTD services in the region, given existing funding levels, makes it very difficult for Boulder to achieve implementation of key elements of their TMP transit initiatives.
RTD operates 24 routes serving the City of Boulder and is Boulder’s primary transportation provider. Through a combination of tax levies, farebox revenues, and other revenue sources, Boulder funds the base service RTD provides to the City. In addition to the RTD-provided service, Boulder directly manages the HOP route under an operating contract with Via, a third party private provider. This third-party arrangement for the HOP route has been in place for more than 20 years.
Governance Structure
The four transit agencies selected as peers for this review all operate and/or manage transit service within a large metropolitan area (Los Angeles, Seattle, and Washington D.C.), similar to Denver’s RTD. The following chart defines the current Boulder and peer situations.
2 Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
The governance structure of each peer differs widely and represents a potential mix of alternative structures for consideration. Denver RTD is classified as a regional transportation authority, operating transit service in eight counties within the Greater Denver Metropolitan region, including Boulder. It is governed by a 15-member board that is publicly elected for four-year terms to represent specific districts within the region. RTD is the only example of a board structure in this review whose board members are directly elected for the sole purpose of transit governance. The RTD Board of Directors is responsible for setting policy, overseeing the agency’s annual budget, and establishing short and long-range transit goals and plans in concert with local, state, and federal agencies.
RTD was created in 1969 by enabling legislation by the State of Colorado. In 1969, the Colorado General Assembly (Assembly) found that public transit was a necessary part of the growing Denver Metropolitan Region. The Assembly found that public sector involvement was the best method to ensure the continuation of this vital component. Thus, the Regional Transportation District was created as a political subdivision of the State effective July 1969 “to develop, maintain, and operate a public mass transportation system for the benefit of the District.” RTD boundaries now include Jefferson, Boulder, and Denver counties, most of the City and County of Broomfield, and portions of Adams, Douglas, Weld, and Arapahoe counties. Approximately 3 million people reside within RTD’s 2,342 square mile area.
Two of the four peers evaluated, Santa Monica Big Blue Bus (BBB), operating in Santa Monica, California, and Alexandria DASH, operating in a suburb of Washington D.C., are governed directly (Big Blue Bus) or indirectly (DASH) by a publicly elected City Council. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus operates as a standalone department of the City of Santa Monica government, and is governed by a seven-member City Council, elected to staggered four-year terms. In 1928, the Santa Monica City Council initiated transit service. In 1951, the City Council purchased the Bay Cities Transit Company, a private transit company that had provided local transit service in the West Los Angeles-Santa Monica Bay Area.
The Alexandria DASH system is a far more complex and unique structure for a transit agency. The Alexandria Transit Company is a nonprofit corporation organized under Chapter 1, Title 13.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, for the purpose of providing mass transportation services as a public
3 Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
service corporation. The certificate of incorporation was issued by the State Corporation Commission in January 1984. The common stock of the corporation, consisting of seven shares with a par value of $1 a share, is owned by the City of Alexandria, Virginia. The Board of Directors, consisting of nine members who serve without compensation, is elected annually by the City Council, acting in the capacity of sole stockholder. The company owns or controls all the physical assets of the transit system, but has no employees.
Operations, under the policy direction of the Board of Directors, are the responsibility of First Transit, Inc., with whom the Board has entered into a management agreement. The General Manager, a First Transit employee assigned with the consent of the Board, is the chief operating officer and the principal staff advisor to the Board on transit matters. The Assistant General Manager is also a First Transit employee. All other persons engaged in the operation of the transit system are employees of Transit Management of Alexandria, Inc., a wholly-owned First Transit subsidiary. The City of Alexandria furnishes legal, accounting, and other administrative services in support of the transit system.
Foothill Transit in Los Angeles County is governed under a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) structure. A joint powers authority is an entity permitted under the laws of some U.S. states, whereby two or more public authorities (e.g. local governments, or transport districts), may jointly exercise any power common to all of them.
Joint powers authorities may be used where an activity naturally transcends the boundaries of existing public authorities. An example would be the Transbay JPA, set up to promote the construction of a new transit center in San Francisco, with several transportation boards and counties around the San Francisco Bay Area as members, or by combining their commercial efforts, public authorities can achieve economies of scale or market power. Joint powers authorities are particularly widely used in California (where they are permitted under Section 6502 of the State Government Code), but they are also found in other states.
A joint powers authority is distinct from the member authorities; they have separate operating boards of directors. These boards can be given any of the powers inherent in all the participating agencies. The authorizing agreement states the powers that the new authority will be allowed to exercise. The term, membership, and standing orders of the board of the authority must also be specified. The joint authority may employ staff and establish policies independently of the constituent authorities.
Joint powers authorities receive existing powers from the creating governments; thus, they are distinct from special districts, which receive new delegations of sovereign power from the state. It should be noted that a JPA cannot create and maintain its own funding stream, as it lacks its own enabling legislation. As in the case of Foothill, a JPA must rely on the cities/counties that comprise the JPA for funding through intergovernmental transfers.
Foothill Transit is governed by a five-member board appointed by five city clusters. General membership in the Foothill Transit Joint Powers Authority includes one city council member and one alternate from each of the 22 cities in the Foothill Transit service area and three appointed representatives for the County of Los Angeles. A five-member Executive Board governs Foothill Transit: four elected officials representing four clusters of cities, and the fifth member is elected by the Los Angeles County representatives (Cluster Five). The Board determines policy that is implemented by a directly-employed administrative staff. On- street operations and front-line customer service are provided through contracts with First Transit and Transdev. In 1988, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (predecessor of the current LA
4 Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
Metro) approved Foothill Transit’s application to operate lines previously operated by Southern California Rapid Transit District (also a predecessor to LA Metro).
King County Metro Transit commenced operations in 1973 as a new regional transportation agency. Metro began as a merger of Seattle Transit that served the city, with the Metropolitan Transit Corporation that served suburban areas. Since the 1990s, Metro has operated as a division within the King County Department of Transportation and serves as King County’s public transportation provider.
As an agency of King County government, Metro works with the King County Executive’s office to develop a proposed two-year budget as part of the County Executive’s budget proposal, for submittal to the King County Council. The Council considers the proposal and can make revisions before adopting a final budget.
Service Area Characteristics
The peer agencies and RTD represent a wide spectrum of population levels, density, and service area size. As can be seen by the three charts that follow, RTD is the most similar in each of the three categories to King County Metro. By contrast, when the City of Boulder is added to the charts for comparative purposes, it is apparent that Boulder is most similar to Big Blue Bus and Alexandria DASH system in each of the three categories since all three are cities rather than regions.
Service Area Population 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 Population 1,000,000 500,000 0 City of Denver Big Blue Foothill King Alexandria Boulder RTD Bus Transit County Peer Agency
5 Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
Service Area 2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000 Square Miles 500
0 City of Denver Big Blue Foothill King Alexandria Boulder RTD Bus Transit County Peer Agency
Density 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 Persons Persons per Square Mile 0 City of Denver Big Blue Foothill King Alexandria Boulder RTD Bus Transit County Peer Agency
Operating Budget/Funding Sources
Funding public transit agency operations generally requires a wide mix of revenue streams, since passenger fares generally do not cover more than 25-35% of the cost to provide service. With respect to the five transit agencies reviewed in this study, as well as most other major transit agencies in the United States, a series of dedicated or general taxes are levied at the state or local level to support transit operations. The most common tax used to support public transit is some form of sales and use taxes, either as a single levy or in a multiple series of increments added over time.
In its adopted FY 2017 budget for base system revenue composition, 62.8% of Denver RTD’s revenue base is composed of sales and use taxes, collected at a statutory rate of 0.6% within the counties comprising the RTD region. Since 2005, an additional 0.4% of sales and use taxes is also collected specifically to fund the FasTracks transit expansion program, and is accounted for separately in RTD’s budget. By comparison, passenger farebox revenues comprise 20.2% of RTD’s base system revenue total. The balance of RTD’s
6 Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
base system revenues are derived from Federal and State operating grants, advertising, and other miscellaneous income.
Both California peer agencies, Big Blue Bus and Foothill Transit, rely on a wide variety of state and local tax levies as the primary mechanism to fund operations. Each agency receives the majority of funds from transportation subsidies allocated by the Regional Transportation Planning entity (LA Metro) to Los Angeles County fixed-route transit operators through the Formula Allocation Procedure (FAP) and the Capital Allocation Procedure (CAP). The California Transportation Development Act (TDA) uses 0.25% of a 7.25% retail sales tax collected statewide for transportation purposes. Up to 93% of total TDA funds are allocated to municipal transit operators (such as BBB), transit districts, and Joint Powers Authorities (Foothill Transit). Allocation of these funds is subject to an LA County Formula Allocation Procedure (FAP), which is based on revenue miles and fare revenues. Additional State Transit Assistance (STA) is provided from sales and use taxes on diesel fuel and gasoline.
In addition to TDA revenues, both BBB and Foothill Transit rely on Proposition A and Proposition C funds, as well as Measure R revenues, to fund operations. These are all separate sales tax ordinances approved and administered at the Los Angeles County level. Proposition A is a 1980 voter approved one-half cent Los Angeles county local sales tax ordinance. These funds may be used for bus operations or capital. Measure R is a 2008 voter approved Los Angeles County one-half cent sales tax ordinance. These funds are eligible for bus operating and capital expenses. Proposition C is a 1990 voter approved one-half cent Los Angeles County sales tax ordinance. The funds are allocated to the regional transit operators through LA Metro, and eligible uses are:
• Maintenance, improvement and expansion of public transit; • Congestion reduction; and • Increase of mobility. In addition to the above sales taxes, Measure M was approved by the Los Angeles County voters in late 2016 as a new one-half cent sales tax dedicated to funding transit in the County. As a line department within the City of Santa Monica government, BBB also receives subsidies from the Santa Monica general fund in the City’s annual adopted budget to supplement expenses for transit service. As a JPA, Foothill Transit does not have a similar arrangement for a general fund subsidy.
Alexandria’s DASH system is the exception in this study with regard to the type of taxes that supply the bulk of its revenue composition. The City of Alexandria generates approximately two-thirds of its annual revenue from residential and commercial property tax levies. A special purpose transportation fund was established via Virginia state legislation to direct a portion of real property tax revenues for transit uses, and this serves as the primary revenue component of the DASH system budget. In addition, the City of Alexandria, similar to Santa Monica and BBB, allocates general fund subsidies for DASH operations in its annual budget appropriation process. It should be noted that the City of Alexandria relies on a vast number of different taxes and fees to support the full suite of government services provided to its constituents.
The primary sources of operating revenue for King County Metro can be summarized as follows:
• Sales Tax – Legislation is required to determine the apportionment (rate) of overall sales tax for Transit. The sales tax is a local option that is currently 0.9% on purchases made in the service area
7
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
of King County. Authority for the local sales tax comes from the Washington State Legislature. The rate was increased to 0.9% by voters in 2007. • Property Tax – Legislation is required to determine the apportionment (rate) of overall property tax for Transit. Property Tax is also a local levy provided by the King County Council under authority provided by the Washington State Legislature (up to 7.5 cents per $1,000 of assessed value can be dedicated to public transit). For the 2017/2018 biennium period, the King County Council reduced levy authority for Metro, but has expressed the intent to increase it in the next biennium period. • Grants – Federal, State and local. Essentially 100% of Metro’s grants are reimbursable, and as a result Metro receives the funds only after expending them on eligible purchases. • Contracted Services – Sound Transit (Regional Express Bus & Link Light Rail), Seattle (Bus Service & Streetcar). Seattle bus service is funded through a 6-year levy approved by Seattle voters, and the levy expires in 2020. The unique nature of the transit service agreement between the City of Seattle and King County Metro, which incorporates many appealing contractual elements for ensuring effective use and control of additional purchased service, is incorporated into this document as Appendix B.
Of the above listed sources, a percentage (determined per policy) of sales tax, capital grants (fleet replacement, competitive projects, etc.), and Sound Transit’s proportional share (determined per contract) are utilized to cover Bond payments for Seattle.
To summarize operating revenue sources, transit agencies are heavily dependent on a wide variety of taxes and fees to support and sustain the cost of providing service. The sales tax is the most commonly used mechanism to generate operating revenues, and can be a volatile revenue source that is subject to overall economic activity in the specific transit region as well as the entire nation. Economic downturns can lead to severe cutbacks in transit service given the prominence of sales tax revenues in transit agency budgets. Property taxes are utilized to fund transit operations to a much lesser extent, but are more likely to be subject to ceilings on either the overall rate that can be levied or the level of increase that can be authorized due to political sensitivity, thereby limiting potential for property tax to serve as a transit revenue growth vehicle. An increasing share of transit revenues is being derived from specific local user fees, such as vehicle registrations, rental car taxes, gas or fuel levies, business licensing fees, etc. No single user fee is likely to generate a significant source of revenue for transit, but a mix of such fees can serve as a reliable supplemental source of revenue.
Capital Budget Funding Sources
Capital Program funding sources for each agency reviewed in this study have several commonalities for each of the systems. Federal government grants, with a usual requirement of a 20% match by state and/or local governments, are generally the primary source of funding for transit capital projects. The main federal grant programs for transit are administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). In addition to federal grants, transit agencies rely to a lesser degree on state and local grants funds to fund capital program improvements. For major transit expansions, such as RTD’s FasTracks program, a separate dedicated sales tax of 0.4% was approved to fund the multi-billion-dollar program, and these revenues
8
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
are utilized to support a significant portion of payments for debt service financing of major capital improvements, through use of long term bonds or commercial paper.
The main federal grant programs per Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) used by all transit agencies in this study are as follows:
• Federal Urban Area Formula Program (Section 5307): These funds are allocated by the Federal Transit Administration and are used for capital procurements or preventive maintenance expenditures. These funds require a 20 percent local match. • Federal Bus and Bus Capital Program (Section 5339, formerly Section 5309): These funds are used for capital improvements and require a 20 percent local match. • Federal State of Good Repair Program Section 5337: These are State of Good Repair funds that must be used either to maintain system infrastructure for buses or rail operating on exclusive transportation right-of-way or to maintain buses operating on lanes not fully reserved for public transportation. They are capital funds used to maintain, replace and rehabilitate vehicles and transportation equipment. They require 20 percent local match. • Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ): These funds are programmed for cost- effective emission reduction activities and congestion mitigation projects that provide air quality benefits.
• Federal New Starts Grant Program: The New Starts program is the current competitive federal grant program supporting the construction of new rail and other fixed guideway systems (such as bus rapid transit and commuter rail). • Federal Small Starts Program: The Small Starts Program involves projects Total project cost is less than $300 million and total Small Starts funding sought is less than $100 million Other specific capital program funding initiatives used by the peers in this study include a 2.2 cent added real estate tax levy in the City of Alexandria for the DASH system. Revenue from this tax is dedicated to capital projects and transportation expansion programs. The two largest systems in this study, RTD and King County Metro, both utilize public-private partnerships for outside entities to contribute funding or provide private financing in support of designated capital program improvements. The two California peers, BBB and Foothill Transit, have their State Capital Program subsidies allocated by their regional transportation planning entity, LA Metro through the Capital Allocation Procedure (CAP). CAP uses total vehicle miles and active fleet size (based on National Transportation Database statistics) to apportion the shares.
Service Coordination
Each of the peers differs in how they choose to manage and operate service. Agencies can operate service in-house, contract to a third party, or a combination of the two models. The chosen model of service coordination decides the agency’s cost and involvement in daily operations. Peers also vary in the level of service planning and coordination with larger regional transportation providers and other transit agencies.
The regional peers (LA Metro, Sound Transit, WMATA, and RTD) all provide transit through a combination of in-house and contracted operations. In the case of RTD, current Colorado state law sets the maximum
9
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
percentage of outsourced transit at 58%, including ADA and call-and-ride services. RTD provides coverage based on performance and regularly meets with member jurisdictions to discuss transit service projects and operations.
As two of the many municipal transit agencies in the Los Angeles region, BBB and Foothill Transit both work closely with LA Metro. Coordination with other surrounding jurisdictions is vital, since services often cross city limit lines. Aside from this regard, the BBB and Foothill Transit differ greatly in their service coordination models. BBB directly operates all aspects of service, while Foothill Transit’s management is done in-house, but operations and maintenance are contracted to First Transit and Transdev. BBB allocates service based on performance standards, while Foothill Transit is legally required to provide service within one mile of 95% of its residents.
King County Metro provides transit service through both in-house and contracted operations, and operates Sound Transit and the City of Seattle’s services that are within the bounds of King County’s jurisdiction. This includes the City’s motorbus, trolleybus, and streetcars and Sound Transit’s light rail and regional express service. King County Metro also operates additional service for the City through an MOU. Additionally, King County Metro participates in the ORCA fare card program, which calls for collaboration with a variety of local transit providers.
Alexandria DASH services are managed, operated, and maintained primarily in-house. Service planning is a joint effort between ATC, WMATA, and the City of Alexandria. ATC and WMATA operate local and regional fixed-route services, respectively, and work closely to ensure adequate coverage and prevent duplicative service. ATC also commonly partners with neighboring local transit service providers and WMATA on regional projects and studies.
Partnerships
Each of the peers has developed different programs to partner with local schools or colleges, specific large employers, or business improvement districts to enhance transit mobility options. A condensed summary of the different programs offered by the four peers (not including RTD) is presented below.
• DASH: ATC currently has a contract with the Department of Defense Washington Headquarter Services to provide express service to the Mark Center BRAC-133 facility, with employee passenger revenues pre-paid. • King County Metro: Metro Transit, in collaboration with the region’s other transit agencies, offers pass programs to universities, schools, and businesses. Over 1,850 businesses participate in these pass programs. In 2016, these efforts generated over 60% of the region’s transit revenue (ORCA); $150 million out of a total of $240 million in transit fare revenue. • Big Blue Bus: BBB has two main partnerships with local universities and colleges: - BBB and Santa Monica College (SMC) renewed the “Any Line Anytime” transit pass program. SMC now accounts for 16% of all BBB ridership; and - BBB and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) renewed the unlimited travel “BruinGo!” transit pass program. UCLA riders now constitute 14% of all BBB ridership.
10
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
• Foothill Transit: This agency has an existing Class Pass program with Mt. San Antonio College and the University of La Verne. Possible future Class Pass partnerships are under consideration with the Claremont Colleges, Cal Poly Pomona, and Citrus College.
Conclusion
The peer analysis has demonstrated that various different transit service delivery model options exist for the City of Boulder to best achieve its Renewed Vision for Transit objectives. The goal of transit should be to add economic, social and environmental value to a region by efficiently moving its residents and others seamlessly. Each of the approaches studied, whether a fully publicly-operated transit system, delegated management contract, operations and maintenance contracts, or a version of a public-private partnership, have a different set of associated financial and operational risks and tradeoffs that must be weighed across many aspects to maximize the quality and efficiency of a transit system for its users.
The planning for, funding of, and delivery of transit is often viewed differently by the local and regional bodies that make up a metropolitan area. Long-established governance structures have often evolved from historic political, funding or demographic realities; however, since these structures control funding and decision-making they can be very difficult to change. Since transit services often cross jurisdictional boundaries, transit governance tends to be complicated, layered, and nuanced. The most important reason to consider transit governance or service delivery reform should be to realize the local mobility vision through cost-effective implementation of community transit initiatives.
11
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
Appendix A: City of Boulder Transit Peer Review Survey Questionnaire
12
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
Denver RTD City of Boulder Transit Peer Review Survey Questionnaire
1. What is the history of your current organization and its relationship to local government? Has it changed in the last five years? Regional Transportation District (RTD) is a regional public transportation authority enacted in 1969 through State of Colorado legislation. No changes in last 5 years. 2. What is your Governance structure? What is the makeup of your Board of Directors if you have one? Are they appointed and if so, by whom, or are they elected and if so, which jurisdictions do they represent? Or are you governed by a City Council or County Board of Supervisors? RTD has a 15-member board directly elected on a district basis. Board changed from appointed to elected in 1970’s. 3. How is local and regional transit service managed, operated, and maintained? Are these in-house functions, are they outsourced through a third party (public or private), or both? RTD provides transit through a combination of in-house and contracted operations. In 1989 state law required privatization of at least 20% of bus lines which was increased by the legislature to at least 35% of fixed route transit in 2002. Current state law sets the maximum outsourcing at 58% of rubber-tired (includes ADA and call-n-ride). 4. What is the relationship between your organization and other regional or local transit service providers? Cooperative and collaborative through regular regional meetings between RTD and its member jurisdictions. 5. What is your current service statistics in terms of annual ridership, route miles, revenue hours, and peak vehicle requirements? Has this significantly changed since the 2015 NTD reporting? 6. Who retains ownership for your various fixed assets including revenue vehicles, operating/maintenance facilities, passenger stations, technology, etc.? Everything is RTD owned except the contractor O/M facilities and equipment. 7. What are your current guidelines and/or standards for the provision of transit service? Are they formally adopted or are they informal? Are they locally or regionally based? Do they address only fixed route transit, or do they consider all modes? Can you share an electronic copy of your guidelines or standards? Regionally based by tier, all modes. Guidelines and standards attached.
13
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
8. Who are your partners in planning local transit and public mobility services? In planning and coordinating regional transit and public mobility services? Will coordinate with local jurisdictions as requested; also see Q4. 9. How does local and regional funding for operations and capital programs impact your planning decisions? How do you fund recommended service expansion? RTD funds regional and local service within guidelines of standards (see Q7). Funding based on availability (Q11). Local jurisdictions may request upgraded transit service that does not meet service guidelines and standards provided it uses local funds. 10. How is the transit service across your region distributed (e.g., performance, equity- based) and how are local concerns addressed? Hybrid (performance based with some equity elements – such as call-n-ride, local service tiers that have lower performance thresholds than regional service tiers). 11. What are the primary sources of operating and capital revenues? Are they legislated and if so, does the legislation expire? Are revenues uniform across your service area or do certain communities invest more heavily in transit? RTD funded with 6/10% basic sales tax that can be used for all transit expenses. RTD also has a 4/10% for FasTracks capital expansion (O/M costs for FasTracks projects are also included); when capital bonds are retired only FasTracks capital projects O/M cost continues to be funded. Note: if someone leaves the district, they still have financial fair share liability for at least bonds. 12. Do you have or are you part of local or regional programs with third parties regarding cost sharing or revenue generation (e.g., universities/colleges, local schools, corporate, neighbor) hood pass programs or business improvement districts)? RTD and its member jurisdictions have EcoPass is a business to business (B2B) program. High school travel is 1/2 fare. Colleges have U-Pass, which is now smart card-based (students receive pass on request; paid for by student fees; staff are covered by EcoPass).
14
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
Santa Monica Big Blue Bus City of Boulder Transit Peer Review Survey Questionnaire
1. What is the history of your current organization and its relationship to local government? Has it changed in the last five years? In the SRTP. Corporate city department. BBB is a line department of the City of Santa Monica. In 1928, the Santa Monica City Council initiated bus service. 2. What is your Governance structure? What is the makeup of your Board of Directors if you have one? Are they appointed and if so, by whom, or are they elected and if so, which jurisdictions do they represent? Or are you governed by a City Council or County Board of Supervisors? BBB is governed by the City of Santa Monica’s seven-member City Council, who are elected at-large for staggered four-year terms. 3. How is local and regional transit service managed, operated, and maintained? Are these in-house functions, are they outsourced through a third party (public or private), or both? Believe it is in-house. In 1951, the City Council purchased the Bay Cities Transit Company, a private transit company that had provided local transit service in the West Los Angeles-Santa Monica Bay Area. 4. What is the relationship between your organization and other regional or local transit service providers? BBB is one of a number of municipal transit agencies in the Los Angeles region. As such, BBB works closely with Metro, the regional transit provider, and other transit agencies, which connect with BBB on a daily basis. BBB provides service in four different jurisdictions requiring BBB to work closely with external staff on service related issues. 5. What is your current service statistics in terms of annual ridership, route miles, revenue hours, and peak vehicle requirements? Has this significantly changed since the 2015 NTD reporting? All figures are for FY 2015-2016. Annual ridership was 16,576,944. Revenue miles were 4,862,782. Revenue hours were 525,842. Route miles were 27,079. Peak vehicle requirement was 167. Compared with 2015 NTD reporting, there were significant changes since BBB was in the middle implementing systemwide changes in the fiscal year to connect bus routes with an expansion of light rail into the BBB service area. 6. Who retains ownership for your various fixed assets including revenue vehicles, operating/maintenance facilities, passenger stations, technology, etc.? C City or BBB corporate entity? BBB owns/ leases all vehicles.
15
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
7. What are your current guidelines and/or standards for the provision of transit service? Are they formally adopted or are they informal? Are they locally or regionally based? Do they address only fixed route transit, or do they consider all modes? Can you share an electronic copy of your guidelines or standards? BBB categorizes areas with fewer than 10 residents or jobs per acre as rarely providing enough concentrated transit demand to generate ridership and meet BBB performance standards. BBB has formally adopted service, design, performance, and evaluation guidelines. These guidelines influence route design, service coverage, scheduling, stop placement, and other planning decisions. Guidelines are locally based and address fixed-route transit only. This information can be shared. 8. Who are your partners in planning local transit and public mobility services? In planning and coordinating regional transit and public mobility services? The regional planning programs BBB participates in and supports are: • Bus Rapid Transit Service • Lincoln Blvd Re-Visioning Process • Rapid Shelter Program • Metro Transit Security Working Group • Metro Bus Operations Subcommittee • Metro Technical Advisory Committee • Transit Access Pass (TAP) Operating Group • Westside Cities Council of Governments • Coordinated Real Time Transit Information Program • Coordinated Transit Signal Priority System • Metro Wilshire BRT Lane Project • Measure M 20% Operations Guidelines Working Group • Measure M Local Return Guidelines Working Group 9. How does local and regional funding for operations and capital programs impact your planning decisions? How do you fund recommended service expansion? FAP (TDA/STA) Prop A and C Measure R local return; Measure M Recent expansions in service were funded by an increase in fare prices. 10. How is the transit service across your region distributed (e.g., performance, equity- based) and how are local concerns addressed? Historic Reserve Service Area part of Metro legislation. Service is performance based but designed to cover long-standing, established corridors.
16
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
11. What are the primary sources of operating and capital revenues? Are they legislated and if so, does the legislation expire? Are revenues uniform across your service area or do certain communities invest more heavily in transit? SRTP Page 21: Capital Funds • Federal: FTA Grants • State: TDA and STA • Local: Prop A, Prop C, Measure R, Prop 1B SRTP Page 22: Operating Funds • State: TDA and STA Operating and capital revenues are uniform across the BBB service area. 12. Do you have or are you part of local or regional programs with third parties regarding cost sharing or revenue generation (e.g., universities/colleges, local schools, corporate, neighborhood pass programs or business improvement districts)? SRTP Pages 8-9. Santa Monica College (SMC), UCLA, and St. John’s Health Center partnerships. Unincorporated County Transit Discount Program.
17
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
Foothill Transit City of Boulder Transit Peer Review Survey Questionnaire
1. What is the history of your current organization and its relationship to local government? Has it changed in the last five years? In 1988, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission approved Foothill Transit’s application to operate lines previously operated by RTD. 2. What is your Governance structure? What is the makeup of your Board of Directors if you have one? Are they appointed and if so, by whom, or are they elected and if so, which jurisdictions do they represent? Or are you governed by a City Council or County Board of Supervisors? Foothill Transit is a joint powers authority. General membership in the Foothill Transit Joint Powers Authority includes one city council member and one alternate from each of the 22 cities in the Foothill Transit service area and three appointed representatives for the County of Los Angeles. A five-member Executive Board governs Foothill Transit: four elected officials representing four clusters of cities, and the fifth member is elected by the Los Angeles County representatives (Cluster Five). The Board directs policy that is implemented by a directly employed administrative staff. On-street operations and front-line customer service are provided through contracts with First Transit and Transdev. 3. How is local and regional transit service managed, operated, and maintained? Are these in-house functions, are they outsourced through a third party (public or private), or both? In 2013, management of Foothill Transit was brought in-house (previously under a contract with Transdev). On-street operations and maintenance, as well as Transit Store operations and bus stop maintenance, continue to be provided under contracts with private firms (First Transit and Transdev). 4. What is the relationship between your organization and other regional or local transit service providers? 5. What is your current service statistics in terms of annual ridership, route miles, revenue hours, and peak vehicle requirements? Has this significantly changed since the 2015 NTD reporting? 6. Who retains ownership for your various fixed assets including revenue vehicles, operating/maintenance facilities, passenger stations, technology, etc.? Foothill Transit owns all revenue vehicles (?). Foothill Transit owns two operating/ maintenance facilities and one administrative office. 7. What are your current guidelines and/or standards for the provision of transit service? Are they formally adopted or are they informal? Are they locally or regionally based?
18
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
Do they address only fixed route transit, or do they consider all modes? Can you share an electronic copy of your guidelines or standards? See question 10. 8. Who are your partners in planning local transit and public mobility services? In planning and coordinating regional transit and public mobility services? 9. How does local and regional funding for operations and capital programs impact your planning decisions? How do you fund recommended service expansion? 10. How is the transit service across your region distributed (e.g., performance, equity- based) and how are local concerns addressed? Service is provided on in accordance to an equity-based policy. Foothill Transit’s 2016 System Standards and Policies document cites local Proposition A, which requires Foothill Transit to provide service within one mile of 95 percent of its residents. 11. What are the primary sources of operating and capital revenues? Are they legislated and if so, does the legislation expire? Are revenues uniform across your service area or do certain communities invest more heavily in transit? Foothill Transit is funded with State and Local sales tax funds, federal transportation funds and fare box revenues. With the exception of the fare box revenues, the majority of funds are transportation subsidies allocated by the Regional Transportation Planning entity (LA Metro) to Los Angeles County fixed-route transit operators through the Formula Allocation Procedure (FAP) and the Capital Allocation Procedure (CAP). See pages 35-36 of the FY 16-FY17 Business Plan and Budget. 12. Do you have or are you part of local or regional programs with third parties regarding cost sharing or revenue generation (e.g., universities/colleges, local schools, corporate, neighborhood pass programs or business improvement districts)? Foothill Transit has an existing Class Pass program with Mt. SAC and the University of La Verne. Possible future Class Pass partnerships with the Claremont Colleges, Cal Poly Pomona, and Citrus College.
19
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
King County Metro City of Boulder Transit Peer Review Survey Questionnaire
1. What is the history of your current organization and its relationship to local government? Has it changed in the last five years? Metro Transit began operations in 1973 as a new regional transportation agency. Metro began as a merger of Seattle Transit that served the city, with the Metropolitan Transit Corporation that served suburban areas. Since the 1990s, Metro is a division within the King County Department of Transportation. 2. What is your Governance structure? What is the makeup of your Board of Directors if you have one? Are they appointed and if so, by whom, or are they elected and if so, which jurisdictions do they represent? Or are you governed by a City Council or County Board of Supervisors? Metro Transit is a division of the King County Department of Transportation and serves as King County’s public transportation provider. As an agency of King County government, Metro works with the King County Executive’s office to develop a proposed two-year budget as part of the County Executive’s budget proposal, for submittal to the King County Council. The Council considers the proposal and can make revisions before adopting a final budget. 3. How is local and regional transit service managed, operated, and maintained? Are these in-house functions, are they outsourced through a third party (public or private), or both? Metro operates approximately 190 bus routes, including six RapidRide routes, Dial A Ride Transit (DART) and operation of Seattle’s South lake Union and First Hill streetcars. In addition, Metro offers accessible services for people with disabilities, commuter vanpools, and alternative transportation services tailored to local needs. Metro also operates under contract Sound Transit’s Link light rail and most of its regional express bus service in King County. (Technical note: DART and accessible services are purchased transportation, not directly operated by Metro.) 4. What is the relationship between your organization and other regional or local transit service providers? Metro operates Sound Transit light rail and regional express bus services under contract, and Seattle’s streetcar routes. Metro partners in the ORCA fare card program with Sound Transit, Pierce Transit, Community Transit, Everett Transit, Kitsap Transit, and the Washington State Ferries. 5. What is your current service statistics in terms of annual ridership, route miles, revenue hours, and peak vehicle requirements? Has this significantly changed since the 2015 NTD reporting?
20
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
From 2015 to 2016 revenue miles increased 3% and revenue hours increased 7% as Metro and the City of Seattle made service investments. Metro ridership declined slightly (by 0.2%). However, the Seattle UZA lead all large UZAs in ridership growth as Sound Transit’s light rail system expanded to the University of Washington and to Capitol Hill, one of the most densely populated areas in Seattle. 6. Who retains ownership for your various fixed assets including revenue vehicles, operating/maintenance facilities, passenger stations, technology, etc.? Metro, as part of King County government, is the owner of record for the various assets utilized in the operation of the system. 7. What are your current guidelines and/or standards for the provision of transit service? Are they formally adopted or are they informal? Are they locally or regionally based? Do they address only fixed route transit, or do they consider all modes? Can you share an electronic copy of your guidelines or standards? Metro Transit has a set of formally-adopted standards known as the Service Guidelines (http://metro.kingcounty.gov/planning/pdf/2011-21/2015/metro-service-guidelines- 042816.pdf). These standards resulted from two major stakeholder processes and were adopted by the King County Council. These policies primarily govern fixed-route demand response services, but “alternative services” are also considered. For paratransit services, Metro Transit exceeds the requirements of the ADA. 8. Who are your partners in planning local transit and public mobility services? In planning and coordinating regional transit and public mobility services? Metro works closely with two public advisory groups: the King County Regional Transit Task Force and the Service Guidelines Task Force, in addition to active membership in the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) MPO. Metro also works with local jurisdictions, particularly the Cities of Bellevue and Seattle, which have their own transit plans. The PSRC is an organization of cities, transit agencies and other entities in King and neighboring counties responsible for policies and decisions for transportation issues. 9. How does local and regional funding for operations and capital programs impact your planning decisions? How do you fund recommended service expansion? Metro revenues are heavily dependent on local sales tax revenues, and therefore are sensitive to economic conditions. This situation makes it difficult to provide sustainable bus service over the long term. The City of Seattle funds about 8% of Metro’s service. More details below Regional capital project partnerships exist with numerous entities and are essential to Metro’s ongoing programs to support service delivery with capital investments. 10. How is the transit service across your region distributed (e.g., performance, equity- based) and how are local concerns addressed? See question 7.
21
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
11. What are the primary sources of operating and capital revenues? Are they legislated and if so, does the legislation expire? Are revenues uniform across your service area or do certain communities invest more heavily in transit? In 2015, operating revenues as reported to NTD, were comprised of roughly 5 percent from federal funds, 1 percent from state funds, 65 percent from local funds, and 29 percent from passenger revenues. Capital revenues were reflected as 53% Federal, 46% Local and 1% State. In 2015, following Seattle voters’ approval of a transit funding ballot measure, the City of Seattle entered a Community Mobility Contract with Metro to purchase approximately 270,000 additional hours of bus service annually, about 8 percent of the Metro system, through 2020. In 2015 Metro’s directly-operated buses logged 3,138,024 revenue hours, up from 3,089,376 in 2014. Primary sources of Operating and Capital revenue sources – • Fares – KC Council approves the rate and policies regarding fares. • Sales Tax – Legislation to determine the apportionment (rate) of overall sales tax for Transit. Rate is relatively reliable, but the basis i.e. sales tax itself is volatile and driven by economy. The sales tax is a local option that is currently .9% on purchases made in our service area – King County. Authority for the local sales tax comes from the Washington State Legislature. Our rate was increased to .9% by voters in 2007. • Property Tax - Legislation to determine the apportionment (rate) of overall property tax for Transit. Rate is relatively reliable, but there was a reduction in this revenue from Transit to Marine division within DOT during last biennium. Property Tax is also a local levy provided by the King County Council under authority provided by the Washington State Legislature (up to 7.5 cents per $1,000 of assessed value can be dedicated to public transit). There is no restriction or reduction associated with the Marine Division. In For the 2017/2018 biennium, the King County Council reduced our levy authority, but has expressed the intent to increase it in the next biennium. • Grants – Federal, State and local. Overall level has been relatively steady, but prone to changes in federal and state budget, including political landscape. Essentially 100% of our grants are reimbursable – meaning we receive the funds only after we expend them on eligible purchases. • Contracted Services – Sound Transit (Regional Express Bus & Link Light Rail), Seattle (Bus Service & Streetcar). Seattle bus service is funded through a 6- year levy approved by Seattle voters, and the Levy expires in 2020. • Interest Income – On Transit fund balances • Misc. other – Vanpool, Other contracted or Special service (UW, Sporting events, etc.), Alternate services (agreements with cities, towns, etc.) Of the above listed sources, a percentage (determined per policy) of sales tax, capital grants (fleet replacement, competitive projects, etc.), and Sound Transit’s proportional share (determined per contract) to cover Bond payments for Seattle DT Tunnel fund the
22
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
Capital Program. Revenue distribution is determined via Fund Management policies adopted by the King County Council. Policies were last adopted in 2016 12. Do you have or are you part of local or regional programs with third parties regarding cost sharing or revenue generation (e.g., universities/colleges, local schools, corporate, neighborhood pass programs or business improvement districts)? Metro currently utilizes their Transit Now program to provide necessary addition service hours that Metro cannot fund on their own. The program currently has 10 public and private partners that have added new routes or existing trips on existing routes that serve residential areas, commercial centers, and employment sites. Since the program’s inception in 2007, program partners have funded roughly 40,000 service hours. Metro also partners with the City of Seattle through its Regional Partnership Fund. As part of the Seattle Transportation Benefit District’s Proposition 1, Seattle has dedicated $3 million of funding to partner with cities on routes that cross Seattle city limits. Metro Transit, in collaboration with the region’s other transit agencies, offers pass programs to universities, schools, and businesses. Over 1,850 businesses participate in these pass programs. In 2016, these efforts generated over 60% of the region’s transit revenue (ORCA). Or, $150 million out of a total of $240 million in transit fare revenue.
23
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
Alexandria Transit Company City of Boulder Transit Peer Review Survey Questionnaire
1. What is the history of your current organization and its relationship to local government? Has it changed in the last five years? Please see Part 1 of attached Transit Development Program (TDP). Alexandria Transit Company (ATC) owns or controls all physical assets of the system and employs only the General Manager. ATC is owned by City of Alexandria City Council, whose members each own a share. City Council elects the members of the ATC Board of Directors, who governs ATC. The City of Alexandria provides an operating subsidy to ATC to operate its services. This has not changed in the last 5 years. 2. What is your Governance structure? What is the makeup of your Board of Directors if you have one? Are they appointed and if so, by whom, or are they elected and if so, which jurisdictions do they represent? Or are you governed by a City Council or County Board of Supervisors? Please see Part 1 of attached TDP. ATC is governed by the ATC Board of Directors. The members of the ATC Board of Directors are appointed by the Board and elected by City Council, ATC’s Stockholders. The Board of Directors consists of 9 members and consists of: 1 City of Alexandria Transportation & Environmental Services Department designee 1 City of Alexandria City Manager designee 1 City of Alexandria Finance designee 1 resident with transportation expertise 1 resident with law expertise 3. How is local and regional transit service managed, operated, and maintained? Are these in-house functions, are they outsourced through a third party (public or private), or both? The City of Alexandria provides a subsidy to both ATC and WMATA to operate transit services within the City. ATC operates mainly local fixed route services and WMATA operates primarily corridor and/or regional fixed route services in Alexandria. ATC transit services are managed, operated, and maintained primarily in house. Certain tasks (studies, bodywork, powertrain overhauls) are outsourced to private vendors. 4. What is the relationship between your organization and other regional or local transit service providers? ATC operates in coordination with all local and regional transit service providers. ATC and local transit service providers often times serve as partners on regional projects.
24
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
5. What is your current service statistics in terms of annual ridership, route miles, revenue hours, and peak vehicle requirements? Has this significantly changed since the 2015 NTD reporting? FY16 Actuals: 4,108,706 total passengers 1,758,689 revenue miles 154,829 revenue hours Has not significantly changed since FY15 NTD. 6. Who retains ownership for your various fixed assets including revenue vehicles, operating/maintenance facilities, passenger stations, technology, etc.? ATC retains ownership of all physical assets of the system (buses, vehicles, etc.) City of Alexandria retains ownership of public ROW assets. (bus stops, shelters). Certain bus terminal facilities are owned by WMATA or privately. 7. What are your current guidelines and/or standards for the provision of transit service? Are they formally adopted or are they informal? Are they locally or regionally based? Do they address only fixed route transit, or do they consider all modes? Can you share an electronic copy of your guidelines or standards? Please see attached ATC Board Policies and Rules. They are formally adopted, mainly locally based, and address only fixed route transit. 8. Who are your partners in planning local transit and public mobility services? In planning and coordinating regional transit and public mobility services? ATC works in coordination with City of Alexandria Transportation and Environmental Services Department and WMATA Bus Planning with service planning. ATC also works with other regional partners, Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, and others with non-service related project with regional scopes. 9. How does local and regional funding for operations and capital programs impact your planning decisions? How do you fund recommended service expansion? ATC’s 10-year Long Range Plan is adopted as part of the annual TDP, with revisions each year. This is used as a basis to apply for City Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for funds for replacement buses, expansion buses, and expansion service operating subsidy. TIP is funded by an add-on 2.2 cent real estate tax, with revenue dedicated for transportation expansion and capital projects. Generally, service improvement recommended as part of the LRP are implemented as TIP funding becomes available.
25
Attachment C: Transit Service Delivery Study technical memo
10. How is the transit service across your region distributed (e.g., performance, equity- based) and how are local concerns addressed? Transit service is distributed mainly based on performance (ridership), with minimum levels set for coverage (policy routes). 11. What are the primary sources of operating and capital revenues? Are they legislated and if so, does the legislation expire? Are revenues uniform across your service area or do certain neighborhoods invest more heavily in transit? DASH capital revenue comes through the City of Alexandria’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which is compiled from various sources. Operating revenue comes from passenger revenue, contract revenue, MOA agreement(s), City Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and City General Fund subsidy. Passenger revenue may vary due to ridership levels and profiles on each route and/or areas of the city. 12. Do you have or are you part of local or regional programs with third parties regarding cost sharing or revenue generation (e.g., universities/colleges, local schools, corporate, neighborhood pass programs or business improvement districts)? ATC currently has a contract with Department of Defense Washington Headquarter Services to provide express service to the Mark Center BRAC-133 facility, with employee passenger revenues pre-paid. In addition, ATC has an MOA with the City of Alexandria to operate the King Street Trolley.
26
Attachment D: NAMS Overview and Arterial BRT Corridor Map Attachment D: NAMS Overview and Arterial BRT Corridor Map Attachment D: NAMS Overview and Arterial BRT Corridor Map Attachment D: NAMS Overview and Arterial BRT Corridor Map